W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Request for returning CSS3-UI to Working Draft status

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:21:13 +0200
Message-ID: <20050813132113.1r7gecxg15sgg0s4@webmail.annevankesteren.nl>
To: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org

Quoting Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>:
> * CSS3-UI is self-contradictory regarding its dependence on XForms.

It is the other way around. XForms depends on CSS3-UI for styling. Also,
everything XForms says is non-normative and therefore does not have to be
followed.


> * CSS3-UI conflicts with the XForms 1.0 Appendix F definitions it is
>  supposed to depend on.

Again, it is the other way around. It is also unclear to me how you could
possible think that normative content depends on a non normative appendix.


> * CSS3-UI creates a definition of the term "read-only" that conflicts
>  with the definition in the HTML 4.01 Recommendation, a spec that it's
>  supposed to interoperate with and that predates it by over four years.

This is exactly why people ask for clarification with reflect to editing
contexts. (There is no conflict with the definition in general, only in a
specific case. If you want to make points, please be careful what you acuse a
spec of.) And I believe people have been asking for clarification on that now
and several sensible suggestions have been made by people from the WYSIWYG
editor "area".

Kind regards,

Anne


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 11:21:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT