- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:36:33 -0700
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org, Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
fantasai wrote: > > 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. Added <p class="note">Note that using default namespaces in conjunction with type selectors can cause UAs that support default namespaces and UAs that don't support default namespaces to interpret selectors differently. See <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#downlevel">Namespaces and down-level clients</a> in the Selectors module [[SELECT]] for details.</p> Let me know what you think. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 22:37:11 UTC