W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Re[2]: css with attribues (was: Re[2]: [CSS] Would be nice if...)

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:29:50 +0000
Message-Id: <C7324FA0-6424-4334-A59B-3326A3D21E63@dorward.me.uk>
To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>

On 11 Jan 2008, at 08:11, Dmitry Turin wrote:
> What is "doesn't support CSS":
> 1) doesn't use for rendering ?
> 2) or doesn't use to specify attribute values ?

Both (assuming this proposal made it into the spec, obviously 2  
wouldn't be "CSS" if it didn't).

> Nature of UA may be so, that it doesn't render at all -
> so (1) is absolutely right in this particular case.
> But (2) is not bound with nature of UA,
> so there is no any restriction to use CSS to assign values for
> attributes.

It means that user agents, as well as having a parser for markup,  
MUST also have a parser for CSS.

> DD> We are dealing with Cascading STYLE Sheets here.

> Ortodox-ness.

Separation of concerns works.

>>> I'm against to enter new values for @type or @rel _for this  
>>> purpose_ ,
>>> because brain will must keep this devision without any benefit.
> DD> Those are other issues, which I object too as well.
> DD> ... though since they don't put semantics into the style layer.

> 1) you object against new values for @type or @rel ? Why ?
> 2) you object against assignment of attributes in separate file ?  
> Why ?

I'll raise those issues with the appropriate working groups if and  
when I'm happy with the way I can express my thoughts about them.  
Lets keep _this_ discussion about CSS.

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 08:30:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:57 GMT