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

Re: [CSS21] Unclear applicability to XML

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:52:32 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508301612010.24100@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> In addition, we have neither a decent test suite for @font-face nor any 
>>>> volunteers to write one, which would be another problem with moving 
>>>> @font-face through to REC in CSS2.1.
>>> 
>>> The same applied to most of CSS 2.1, which until recently had only a 
>>> copy of the CSS1 tests and no CSS2 tests at all.
>> 
>> That is clearly not true;
> 
> Actually it was, until recently, true.

We have had volunteers for the other parts of the spec for many years, we 
have not had volunteers for @font-face. So, no, it wasn't true.


>>>> The @font-face feature in CSS2 is still in CSS2, and is also covered 
>>>> by a CSS3 spec for which, if I am not mistaken, you are the editor. 
>>>> Therefore we do not see any difficulty in the removal of this 
>>>> feature.
>>> 
>>> There is a certain 'difficulty' in having RECs that used to point to 
>>> RECs now point to unstable working drafts.
>>
>> I encourage you to finish the CSS3 module, then.
> 
> My point was more general than the one feature. For example, XSL 1.0 and 
> 1.1 make normative reference to the CSS2 specification. The impact on 
> XSL or removing features from CSS level 2 does not seem to have been 
> considered.

XSL 1.0 and 1.1 make informative, not normative, references to CSS2, so 
the impact seems minimal. In addition the links given in the spec are 
dated, so anyone needing to read that information will have no problem 
doing so even if we rescinded CSS2.


> Since we seem to agree on this point, are you saying that CSS 2.1 is 
> primarily aimed at UAs that gain benefit from implementing the current 
> set of features in CSS 2.1 (ie, the (X)HTML browsers)? If so, please 
> state so explicitly in the spec.

I don't really understand why you keep on insisting that CSS might be 
specific to XHTML browsers. It applies to any structured document format. 
This is stated explicitly in the abstract.


> Its not clear that XUL is a 'document language'. I'm glad to see DocBook 
> on the list of markup languages in scope for CSS 2.1 styling. Please 
> ensure that at least one DocBook example is in the specification.

We do not see how this would help. There are already multiple examples 
applying CSS to non-HTML languages.


>> The abstract currently says "CSS 2.1 is a style sheet language that 
>> allows authors and users to attach style (e.g., fonts and spacing) to 
>> structured documents (e.g., HTML documents and XML applications)", is 
>> this not clear enough? It seems clear to me from this that images (SVG) 
>> and chemical data (CML) are out of scope.
> 
> Since the SVG images (in XML) and CML Chemical data (in XML) are both 
> XML applications, its not clear at all. If the intent is to apply CSS2.1 
> to 'document like' (eg XHTML, SpecProd, DocBook, and such like technical 
> documentation formats) then please say so explicitly.

"structured documents". Notwithstanding that other specs abuse the word 
"document", this seems to be quite clear.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 16:52:45 GMT

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