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

Re: [CSS21] Style sheet definition

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 06:09:18 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0510170558570.23945@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
> OK, so add that. "in this specification, the term "style sheet" is 
> considered to mean a CSS style sheet".

What on earth else would it refer to. It's the Cascading Style Sheet 
specification. I am pretty sure all of our readers are quite able to 
understand from context that when we say "style sheet" we're not refering 
to, say, a DSSSL style sheet, but a Cascading Style Sheet.

> IH> These proposals do not seem to be intended to make the spec clearer.
> Of course they are! Come off it Ian, I know you want to push back on 
> most of these suggestions but really, its a simple request for 
> clarification. CSS 2.1 does not need to define all style sheets for all 
> languages. Its as simple as that. Definitions in specs get re-used in 
> other specs. So, be clear that your definition is of a CSS style sheet.

You want the CSS spec to be less readable so that other specs that refer 
to the CSS spec for definitions are less confusing? I respectively suggest 
that that is not Not Our Problem (tm).

> IH> There aren't actually any ambiguities here unless you specifically
> IH> are trying to misread the spec.
> Or unless you are trying to somehow define what other style sheet 
> languages do.

Why would anyone assume that the CSS specification was trying to define 
another language than itself?

I know the SVG spec is trying to define everything from networking APIs to 
editor semantics to text layout and flow to map edge sharing to templates 
to timing APIs (and probably also vector graphics), which may be why you 
are confused about this, but most specifications, including the CSS 
specifications, stay within their subject area and there is therefore no 
reason to even consider that the CSS spec may be trying to define anything 
outside the scope of CSS.

> IH> If you would like us to mark this issue as unresolved in the disposition
> IH> of comments, let us know. However, as it currently stands, we reject this
> IH> proposed change on the grounds that it would merely make the specification
> IH> more confusing.
> I will convey the rejection to the WGs. Its a shame that you resist so
> strongly makin the spec clearer.

In my opinion, your suggestion would do the opposite.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 06:09:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:21 UTC