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

Re: Server and Client Capabilities (Where Info. Should Be Located)

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:52:50 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c8010507130552722dad07@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 7/13/05, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> Orion Adrian wrote:
> 
> >But this only happens when we move the primary layout mechanism to the
> >device, make it semantic in nature and not content-based in nature and
> >finally make it content.
> >
> >Each region of the layout would specify which types of content it
> >allows (e.g. class), not which content it contains (i.e. src). This is
> >where XFrames fails.
> >
> >Then we can see about moving formatting too.
> >
> >
> I have replied multiple times to this already, with the response that
> XHTML 2.0 *does this* by means of its role attribute [1]. Semantics are
> not the domain of CSS, but of the underlying language such as XHTML 2.0.

Yes, that's how it's advertised, but there is no method for consuming
based on this role in either CSS or XFrames.

> In a previous message you said:
> 
> >2) No new property should be used to hide or modify content in such a
> >way that it's non-existence should fundamentally change the meaning of
> >the styled document.
> >
> Here, too, things that change the meaning of the styled document should
> be expressed in the markup for the document, and not in CSS. So your
> 'guideline' doesn't really makse sense, because the situation that you
> sketch (new -or old, why make a distinction?- properties fundamentally
> changing the meaning) shouldn't arise in the first place.

The meaning here doesn't change and I'm not quite sure how you reached
that conclusion. I'm talking about consuming the elements provide
either by link link or by the role attribute.
 
> Anyways, now you're really starting to repeat yourself. I've heard this
> already. XFrames may be insufficient, but if it is, XFrames should be
> changed. This is outside the domain of CSS. So you're writing this to
> the wrong list.

If this is the domain of XFrames, then CSS is oversteping its bounds,
if it is the domain of CSS, then it's not being very semantic. Either
way, I see a problem. I have yet to see a conversation outside myself
to say, position: absolute is outside the domain of CSS.

If you want to say, hey this is XFrames' thing, then I'll happily go
away after CSS stops doing the exact same function.

-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2005 12:53:53 GMT

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