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

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> 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.

I don't mind adding a note pointing to the Selectors module here. I'm
opposed to making any normative changes or giving any unsound advice,
but clarifying the situation shouldn't be a problem imho.

I'd rather add a pointer and not repeat the entire explanation, though,
if that's ok. :) Especially since the issue is technically out-of-scope
for this particular module: the Selectors module is where default
namespaces are defined to apply to type selectors.

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 22:00:31 UTC