Re: Triangles example in BeCSS

Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> I think this is only true if you don't know how CSS works.

Perhaps so, but does that matter ? To my mind,
Elliotte's wording /is/ clearer because it
avoids the obfuscation that results from the
overloading of "triangles".

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-becss-20070205/ :

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

Elliotte :

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

Punctuation-noise removed :

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

Philip Taylor