W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Extend use of namespaces

From: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:18:18 -0600 (MDT)
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <921048478.18403.1284754698210.JavaMail.root@zimbra.volantis.com>


----- Original Message -----
> > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Paul Duffin
> 
> 
> > I don't dispute the initial motivation for adding it but it seems to
> > me
> > that the language used in the specification indicates that
> > considerable
> > thought went into making it suitable for use as a general mechanism
> > for
> > namespacing CSS identifiers in general.
> 
> Considerable thought ? Because it lets you infer a usage pattern one
> of
> the original editors is explicitly disagreeing with ?
> 

Because it clearly is intended to be more general than the original document and I am crediting the authors/reviewers and all those with making considered decisions to write the specification as they had over the 9 years since it was originally proposed.

As far as I can tell none of the authors of the *current specification* have commented on this. I don't know what input Peter had on that and am not criticizing him personally but I do know how ideas evolve and change so what he may have intended when he wrote it is not necessarily what the current authors intend.

I also know that it is very difficult (impossible?) to write technical specifications / documents that have no holes, gaps or ambiguities so it is possible that I am reading too much into it.

> > Personally, I find the namespaces specification well written and its
> > intent and purpose very clear.
> 
> If it can interpreted to mean something its authors believe it did not
> intend
> then its purpose may not be so clear and thus its writing would be
> deficient
> in this respect.
> 
> I strongly agree that is we did need to add namespaces *to* CSS it
> should use
> a different syntax than that used *by* CSS to referenced namespaces in
> documents.

Lets assume for arguments sake that we did need to add namespaces to CSS. What syntax would you use?
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 20:18:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT