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

Re: [css3-namespace] Last call comments from XHTML2 WG

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:11:26 +0100
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>, "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t8qhxcsgsmjzpq@acer3010>

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:18:04 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>  
wrote:
> Mark asked for guidance on how to choose between multiple methods, that
> request is sound and already addressed in the right place. You on the
> other hand assert that default namespace declarations in style sheets as
> proposed in the draft come as a surprise and special attention needs to
> be drawn to this surprise. I don't think there is any surprise, and thus
> have a hard time to understand exactly how we could address the concern.
> If you could propose specific edits, that would be most helpful.

I didn't say it was a surprise. I said it was contrary to an axiom of CSS  
up to now that future additions to CSS don't change how previous parts of  
the language work. That is part of the forward-compatible parsing rules of  
CSS:
	If I apply the forward-compatible parsing rules to a CSS(n+1) stylesheet,  
stripping it of its CSS(n+1) features, I will get a CSS(n) stylesheet.  
None of the rules left change their meaning in the process.

This has always been true in CSS, and the namespace selectors spec changes  
this.

A note pointing out that default namespaces alter the way that type  
selectors work compared with earlier versions of CSS, and if you want to  
avoid that you should always use explicit qualified names would do the  
trick.

Best wishes,

Steven
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 16:12:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:02 GMT