W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-stylesheet-comments@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Comments on last editor's draft of xml-stylesheet [glazman-1]

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:42:01 +0200
To: www-xml-stylesheet-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vatzkbsaidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
This is a personal comment, not a WG response.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:42:24 +0200, Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>  

> Ok. So there is no specification at all defining what means
> the lack of the media pseudo-attribute on the xml-stylesheet
> PI and that behaviour is then, at this time, totally undefined
> in ALL current browsers.

It can be defined in CSSOM.


> This is a severe architectural problem
> that, again, cannot be solved on the CSS side since your spec
> leaves it in the hands of the xml dialect.
> Quoting the document:
>     This second edition incorporates all known errata as of the
>     publication date, clarifies several areas left unspecified in the
>     earlier edition.
> I am therefore raising an objection on this point since it does not
> clarify this area left unspecified.
> The WG's response on the scoped stylesheet issue is not
> satisfactory since, again from an architectural point of
> view, this spec will be inconsistent with the forthcoming HTML5
> state of art.

There's no reason xml-stylesheet needs to have feature parity with HTML5.  
In fact, it doesn't even have feature parity with HTML4. HTML4 has <link  
rel=stylesheet> and <style>, xml-stylesheet only has the equivalent for  
<link rel=stylesheet>. HTML5 has scoped="" for <style> only, not for <link  
rel=stylesheet>. It doesn't make sense to add scoped to xml-stylesheet  
when we lack the equivalent of <style>.

I think xml-stylesheet does not need the equivalent of <style> or <style  

Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 06:42:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:06 UTC