Re: more profile confusion

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Michael A Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

> Either way, I am also confused about the practice of including various
> features concurrently – both in the Recommendation and as used by 3rdparties. I don’t know what it means to include:
>
> ** **
>
> 1.            Both (for example): #backgroundColor and
> #backgroundColor-block; or****
>
> 2.            All of (for example): #backgroundColor,
> #backgroundColor-block, #backgroundColor-inline, and
> #backgroundColor-region; or****
>
> 3.            Both (for example):  #presentation and #core.****
>
> ** **
>
> In #1, doesn’t #backgroundColor sweep in all semantics and placement?  If
> so, what does it mean to add the more restricted one? And if
> #backgroundColor does not include all semantics and placement, what is
> excluded? (This is just an example and the same question can be asked of
> all the #[feature]-[subset] constructions.)
>

specifying that #backgroundColor is required is equivalent to specifying
that #backgroundColor-{block,inline,region} are required;

the reason for having the subset features is that one may not require all,
e.g., may not require inline background color, but only require block and
region, in which case one would specify that
#backgroundColor-{block,region} are required; or if one is lazy (and
willing to risk running on a presentation processor that happens to support
block and region background color but not inline background color), then
one could merely specify #backgroundColor as required

so in this case, specifying #backgroundColor-block is redundant


> ****
>
> In #2, all the subset constructions are specified. How is this different
> from simply #backgroundColor?
>

no difference, specifying the subset constructions is redundant


> In #3, #core is included in #presentation, so isn’t #presentation adequate?
>

#core is a subset of #presentation, so in specifying both the former is
redundant

¿claro?