W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2003

Re: XBL is (mostly) W3C redundant, and CSS is wrong W3C layer for semantic behavior *markup*

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:47:54 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20030105172653.03cb8100(null)>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

I hope this reply in detail to Ian will show why I will be mostly ignoring his
obfuscation attempts in future posts...

At 11:23 PM 1/5/2003 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:


I can provide examples that XBL can change semantics to non-conform with HTML
spec, if antagonist debate on this thread stops long enough for me to get some

In the meantime, you will just have to trust me and others who have said XBL
does have that power.

>I already countered this argument, although you ignored me:

Your point was wrong.  We can get into specific examples later.  How about we
not obfuscate the discussion until we've agreed that examples is the only
remaining issue.

>|> If a <select> submits a form, then that is a major semantic change.

No where in HTML 4.01 spec does it say that <select> can not submit a form.

>>>| By your logic, CSS is "non-conforming", due to this rule:
>> Some of CSS allows implementation which creates semantics which is
>> not compliant to the HTML 4.01 spec[1]. My understanding is those
>> portions are CSS are by and large noted as "not required by HTML
>> conforming user agents"[1].

I did not write that _all_ of CSS is "non-conforming".

Only "portions of CSS are" and they "are noted as not required".

Read more carefully.

>I have already countered this claim, although again you ignored me:
>|>> CSS can decide how something will be rendered, e.g., for some made
>|>> up tag you could say:
>|>> goo { display: table }
>|> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#display-prop
>|> "Conforming HTML user agents may ignore the 'display' property."
>| Firstly, "goo" is not an HTML element, so that line doesn't apply.

This is inane because "non-conforming" doesn't apply if there is no
specification for the tag.  Thus in that case, CSS is defining the semantics. 
Else I assume there is a specification some where and that line would apply. 
It says "conformig HTML".

You seem to have a problem with reading carefully.  That is another reason I am
desiring to ignore many of your points now.

>| Thirdly, thanks for pointing this out, I have raised this issue with
>| the WG, and hopefully that line will be removed from CSS2.1.

Perserve your ego by ruining the specification. Nice work!!!!!

Has nothing to do with truth however.

>(Note that Chris Lilley, the CSSWG chair when that line was added to
>the spec, agreed with my comments above [1], so I am probably right.)

Chris's logic imo (and based on corrections I have made to his posts) thus far
has not been up to speed on the totality of issues in this thread.  It is not
surprising as he entered very late.

>>>|    p:empty { border: solid blue; }
>> A paragraph with a border is still conforming to semantics of HTML
>> 4.01 spec. Thus by my definition your example CSS is
>> "presentation"[2].
>An empty paragraph must be ignored per HTML 4.01 section 9.3.1:
># User agents should ignore empty P elements.
> -- http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.3.1

It also says "We discourage authors from using empty P elements.".  So using an
empty paragraph is non-conforming markup.

Again you seem to have a habit of not reading carefully.

>Therefore according to your logic, that rule violates HTML's semantics.

No.  The empty paragraph markup violates the HTML specification.

>Indeed; but these deviations do not change the semantics of the
>specification as you claim.

I did not claim they _always_ change semantics.  I only claimed they can _some_
times.  Prove they can not.

>> More importantly, many people could argue quite effectively that
>> conformance with the most popular implementation has always proven
>> to be the _MOST_ relevant consideration for programmers who want to
>> succeed in the market.
>That, however, doesn't affect the _meaning_ of the documents in any way.

I was refuting your point in which you wrote "Non-conforming meaning is, by its
very nature, irrelevant"[1]

Nice attempt to change the focus to avoid capture.  You have a habit of being a
moving target when ever you are proven wrong.

>Features are the cornerstone of a specification,

I'd rather discuss the specifications themselves.  More direct to point.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0117.html

-Shelby Moore
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 18:46:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:05 UTC