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

Re: styling xml with css - copying xml attribute values into CSS attribute values

From: dolphinling <lists@dolphinling.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:00:55 -0500
Message-ID: <43A3FDF7.10102@dolphinling.net>
To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>

Orion Adrian wrote:
> On 12/16/05, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:58:58 +0100, Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
>>>>Not in the way he suggests you do it.
>>>And in the way I'm suggesting it?
>>Makes sense. (Although I'd would not really like it in any text/css file.
>>More something different.)
> I never suggested they be in the same document. Notice in my examples
> I didn't use any standard CSS properties, just the syntax.
>>>>Also, this would require some additional document where XHTML already
>>>>contains this kind of meaning. Not to say I really dislike your
>>>>though. Quite often there seems to be some need to let CSS specify
>>>>semantic hints/semantics.
>>>I think the fundamental problem here and why everybody wants to
>>>populate CSS with junk is because they want the matching mechanism.
>>>They want to be able to say, all these like this have these
>>Yeah, like saying that some element has the same semantics as html:title
>>for example.
> Specifically that it has the semantics of a title. The tools used to
> communicate information have been around a long time and it's more
> like: this element has title semantics and so does html:title.

Reminds me of a blog post I wrote a little while back.

I think I prefer what I outline there to this, as it keeps the document 
and the style separate but still allows one to expand on semantics 
easily. In any case, I've definitely drifted out of  www-style 
territory. :-)

>>>It's part of the reason I'd like CSS to be broken apart into it's core
>>>components and standardized seperately. Specifically the matching
>>>algorith + selectors - certain pseudo-classes; the box model and the
>>>properties that can be applied to it; and the grammar.
>>Selectors is separate from CSS.
> I think you mean selectors are a discrete module in CSS. What I'm
> talking about is breaking it out for real. Selectors still specify
> things that only make sense in a visual medium and my imaginary XML
> vocabulary may not make any sense visually or at least it may not
> allow text. While I like the idea of pseudo-elements and
> pseudo-classes, I feel it should be another module that defines the
> specific classes and elements and it should be up to the selector spec
> to simply specify that there are these things called pseudo-elements
> and pseudo-classes and here's how to define/use them.

IIRC it already is? And is merely grouped with CSS 3 for historical 
reasons/convenience? Don't quote me on that. Though I do notice the 
modules are named "CSS3 module: Cascading and inheritance" or "CSS3 
module: The box model", but selectors is just "Selectors".

Received on Saturday, 17 December 2005 12:01:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:22 UTC