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 20:58:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508302038530.19404@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 30 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.
> I spoke originally of tests. You added volunteers as well, and now you 
> are only speaking of volunteers.

Chris, I encourage you to reexamine the start of this thread. You did not 
originally speak of tests; I did. And introduced the mention of volunteers 
in the same sentence, because in the context of the original comment it 
was the volunteers that were more important.

> It is difficult to test an implementation against a volunteer, so please 
> try to respond to the original point.

The original point was extremely vague, not making any actual requests. My 
original reply explained why @font-face was removed. Beyond that I'm 
having great difficulty understanding what this thread is about.

> If that satisfies the XSL WG then it satisfies me.

I was under the impression that these comments were "from both the CDF WG 
and the SVG WG"; are they from those working groups, or from you?

>> I don't really understand why you keep on insisting that CSS might be 
>> specific to XHTML browsers.
> Because the spec sometimes implies that and other times does not; 
> because you sometimes imply that and other times not.

With all due respoect, I think you would have an either time understanding 
both the CSS specs and my own e-mails if you read what was written, 
instead of trying to read what might or might not be implied.

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

It would seem reasonable, however, to use the normal English meaning of 
the word in the absence of a specific definition.

One reason we are reluctant to define the term is that CSS2.1 can be 
applied to any random XML, including (in a non-SVG UA) one containing 
elements from the SVG namespace. For example CSS has been applied to Atom, 
RSS, MathML, Docbook, XHTML, XUL, random SGML, proprietary XML, CML, SVG, 
etc. Just because CSS2.1 can be applied to SVG files, however, doesn't 
mean it can be used to render graphics, and in fact CSS2.1's interaction 
with an actual SVG UA is not particularly useful if your statements in 
www-svg regarding its moribund status are to be taken seriously.

In short, the scope in terms of what we want it to be primarily useful for 
is document formats that are typeset in typical "document-like" (as you 
put it) ways. However, it can be applied to any XML, SGML, or other format 
that uses a tree of elements.

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

It's applicable in the same way that it's applicable to HTML. I seriously 
do not see that there is any difficulty here. Anyone competent enough to 
use Docbook and CSS is quite capable to work out how they work together.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 20:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC