W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2008

Re: ISSUE-48 (marks-content-markup-attribute): 'marks' content markup attribute for Q (quotation) and BLOCKQUOTE [HTML 5 spec]

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:55:18 +0000
Message-Id: <6DCEF552-5B45-4F37-B514-AB82CA5D1EF8@robburns.com>
To: HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>

Hi Andrew,

In a previous email[1], I failed to double check the example CSS I  
provided. It should have been:

q[marks=provided]::after {
	content: "";

Just to underscore the point here. It seems to me a major stretch to  
use the phrase "implementation complexity" when changing a UAs default  
stylesheet. Instead this is simply taking advantage of an excellently  
abstracted implementation architecture without adding any complexity  
at all. If this proposal required an overhaul of CSS implementations  
then I could understand talking about implementation complexity.  
Adding CSS rules to a default stylesheet or adding element type names  
to a parsing dictionary where the element fits precisely with other  
elements already in the list is not adding complexity. It's simply  
taking advantage of the implementation as is.

I would still like to hear what you (Andrew) think s implementation  
complexity. Is that any change to the implementation. If so then  
fixing minor bugs would count as adding implementation complexity.

One more issue that came to mind as well is that the suggestion that  
authors choose one or the other and then tailor the CSS accordingly  
(which is what I think your suggesting) amounts to putting this  
semantic information in the stylesheet. It undermines user stylesheet,  
since the user would have to examine the authors stylesheets to glean  
what the semantic state of the quotation elements were.

Take care,

[1]: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/0050.html>

On Jun 2, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Robert J Burns wrote:

> Well why don't you tell me how you're using it here. As I've said  
> already this requires a single CSS declaration in the UAs default  
> stylesheet for UAs that support CSS ::before and ::after selectors.
> q[marks=provided]::before,
> q[marks=needed]::after {
> 	content: "";
> }
> Is that what you mean by implementation? Is that what you mean by  
> implementation complexity? I would call that a stylesheet  
> declaration having little to do what most other people refer to when  
> they talk about "implementation complexity". Keep in mind too that  
> this is optional. It would be perfectly acceptable to simply give  
> authors this fix (one they could come up with on their own, but this  
> provides an official W3C endorsement and gives them conformance  
> checking for it). So in that sense it requires no implementation  
> from UAs whatsoever. All those UAs already supporting CSS ::before  
> and ::after will already handle this for authors. Likewise since its  
> meant to patch a problem with UAs that do not support CSS ::before  
> and ::after, they too require no implementation.
> So please explain to me what you mean by implementation.
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 20:56:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:32 UTC