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

Re: [CSS21] Please endorse xml:id

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 02:49:56 +0000 (UTC)
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507010243350.7173@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > It's not appropriate for a spec to take positions on other 
> > technologies. Technologies should succeed or fail on their own merits, 
> > not because they were dragged kicking and screaming into 
> > implementations by virtue of other specs requiring them.
> 
> That is quite incorrect. CSS, on it's complete own, is 100% useless. A 
> CSS user agent would probably be the dumbest piece of software one could 
> ever write.

I don't see how this contradicts my statement.


> It is *very* appropriate for user-agent orientated specs to take a stand 
> on which technologies are applicable.

Why?


> At the other end of the spectrum you get toolbox specs that are just 
> there to be reused for whatever. Those aren't bad per se -- while 
> decorating the christmas tree I guess I could amuse my youngest nephews 
> with style="balls:none;" for a short while -- but they don't do that 
> much to help foster interoperability. It's fine to have shiny screws and 
> a nice red screwdriver, but if they don't match you're, well, screwed.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.


> CSS 2.1 is already a good piece of post-processing in that direction, 
> but it can be improved still. Improving interoperability by adding 
> xml:id is a case where it would take a chance of being helpful.

Why not require XSLT, too? And xml:base? And SVG? And HTML? And XML?

Or why not go the other way around? Why not have xml:base require CSS?


> All he said was *if* an implementation applies CSS to XML, then it 
> SHOULD (I would very definitely say MUST), use xml:id.

It would be similar to saying "If an implementation of xml:id renders the 
XML fragment, it SHOULD use CSS". And IMHO just as ridiculous.


> What's that to ask? It doesn't burden HTML implementations. It doesn't 
> burden anyone who's not doing an XML+CSS implementation.

But it does burden those who _are_ doing an XML+CSS implementation (and 
who care about fully complying to the spec).


> So please put it in. It's the nice and reasonable thing to do.

I'd consider pushing for CSS to require xml:id if xml:id, SVG, xml:base, 
and UTF-8 required conformance to CSS to claim conformance to those specs.


> And we don't want to get unreasonable do we? Because I agree that 
> implementors shouldn't be "dragged kicking and screaming" into doing 
> stuff. I find it works better when they're chained, gagged, and whipped. 
> Most of the time at least, and your mileage may vary.

If implementors don't want to implement xml:id, that's xml:id's problem. 
The CSS working group shouldn't have to be involved in that.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 02:50:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT