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

Re: [CSS21] Style sheet definition

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:26:36 +0200
Message-ID: <1201735255.20051017162636@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Monday, October 17, 2005, 8:09:18 AM, Ian wrote:

IH> 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".

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

So, define that clearly. Its common for specs to refer to definitions in
other specs. I'm asking for a simple clarification; and can't see why
you push back so hard on it.


>> 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.

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

You have not made the case that it would be less readable. Specific text
was proposed, which you have not discussed.

Your comment that all other specs are irrelevant is interesting, although
not totally unexpected. However, again, it would be useful to hear the
opinion of others in the CSS WG.


>> 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.

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

Prior experience?

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

I'm glad that you see the necessity of staying within chartered work,
and invite you to look at the SVG and CS charters; but don't really see
the relavance of that to this particular discussion.

>> 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.

IH> In my opinion, your suggestion would do the opposite.

It would be useful to hear the WG opinion, besides yours. Marking a
minor request for clarification as a disputed last call review that
needs to be discussed with the Director seems rather needless in this
instance.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 14:26:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:41 GMT