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

Re: [CSS21] Unclear applicability to XML

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:10:14 +0200
Message-ID: <1166239733.20050830191014@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 6:52:32 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> 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.

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

I spoke originally of tests. You added volunteers as well, and now you
are only speaking of volunteers. It is difficult to test an
implementation against a volunteer, so please try to respond to the
original point.


>>>>> 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.

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 doing so even if we rescinded CSS2.

If that satisfies the XSL WG then it satisfies me.

>> 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.

IH> I don't really understand why you keep on insisting that CSS might be 
IH> specific to XHTML browsers.

Because the spec sometimes implies that and other times does not;
because you sometimes imply that and other times not. Because an idea of
the intended scope is essential to determining whether the spec meets
that scope.

IH>  It applies to any structured document format.
IH> This is stated explicitly in the abstract.

Perhaps 'document' needs to be more clearly explained, as we discussed
on the phone yesterday there are several different meanings for
'document'.

>> 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.

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

Well, it would help show that its applicable. I'm sure Norm Walsh would
be able to give you a simple example to style.

>>> 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.

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

Nope, not clear at all.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 17:10:29 GMT

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