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

Re: [CSS21] Grammar precludes future XML syntax for CSS

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:04:10 +0200
Message-ID: <1721183007.20050916220410@w3.org>
To: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-www-style@farside.org.uk>
Cc: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org

On Friday, September 16, 2005, 9:49:32 PM, Malcolm wrote:

MR> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 07:35:27PM +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> [...] CSS level 7 could not use XML syntax, for
>> example. Is that a deliberate design decision or an oversight?

MR> I think it could be argued that a reformulation of CSS based on a different
MR> syntax (e.g. XML, binary, whatever) would result in something that was not

Sure, one could say that it is XCSS or something. Although, if it still
had properties, and still had a cascade, and still had selectors, and
still had user and author and user-agent style sheets, one would then
start casting around for a term like "CSS family" to describe XCSS and
CSS classic.

MR> in the same way that XHTML1 - a reformulation of HTML4's semantics in
MR> XML - is not HTML.

Both a good and a bad example. Its certainly not HTML 4, but HTML4 and
HTML 3.2 qand HTML 2 and XHTML 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 are all "HTML".

So "HTML" is used both to refer to pre-XHTML member of the HTML family,
and also to the whole family.

One sees the ambiguity in the CSS 2.1 spec, in fact, where certain
things are allowed for HTML and then CSS has to say that its only
pre-XHTML that has those things allowed.

pars pro toto has issues, in sum. It would be good to deal with that
ambiguity in CSS 2.1.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 16 September 2005 20:04:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC