W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Triangles example in BeCSS

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:49:45 +0100
Message-ID: <642981962.20070214174945@w3.org>
To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 4:14:12 PM, Elliotte wrote:

EH> I think the following example in section 3.3 of BeCSS is unclear:

EH> Assuming the above file was called triangles.xml, these bindings could
EH> be bound to elements using CSS like so:

EH> @namespace triangles url(http://triangles.example.com/);
EH> triangles|isoceles { binding: url(triangles.xml#isoceles); }
EH> triangles|rightangle { binding: url(triangles.xml#rightangle); }

EH> In particular I think some people are going to read this as meaning the
EH> namespace URL is somehow used to locate the file containing the binding
EH> definition.

I don't see that (from the syntax), although perhaps the similarity of
names might confuse some.

EH>  It's not clear to me why a namespace is used here,

It seems both obvious and good, to me.

EH>  but if 
EH> you're going to use one at all something like this might be clearer:

EH> @namespace t url(http://namespaces.example.com/);
EH> t|isoceles { binding: url(triangles.xml#isoceles); }
EH> t|rightangle { binding: url(triangles.xml#rightangle); }

I agree that this is both more realistic (why use a huge long prefix)
and also might stop people drawing false conclusions based on

Although, if I were going to rewrite the example I would tend to go

@namespace g url(http://ns.example.com/geometry);
g|isoceles { binding: url(triangles.xml#isoceles); }
g|rightangle { binding: url(triangles.xml#rightangle); }

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Interaction Domain Leader
 Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 16:49:44 UTC

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