RE: Assoc SS issue list

Thanks, John.

I've updated the doc--let me know if I've erred.

Comments below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2009 June 23 11:46
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Assoc SS issue list
> 
> Grosso, Paul scripsit:
> 
> > If you are going to discuss an issue, please use the numbers > to
> refer to issues and potential resolutions.
> 
> My takes:
> 
> 1: agreed
> 
> 2: agreed
> 
> 3: I prefer g and reject the others, because AssocSS defers to HTML4,
> and HTML4 says in 12.3.2:

I assume you meant "e" not "g".

> 
>         When the LINK element links an external style sheet to a
> document,
>         the type attribute specifies the style sheet language and the
>         media attribute specifies the intended rendering medium or
>         media. User agents may save time by retrieving from the
network
>         only those style sheets that apply to the current device.
> 
> The plural, style sheet*s*, in the second sentence clearly licenses
> browsers to accept more than one style sheet.
> 
> 4: agreed
> 
> 5: I prefer g and reject the others, by analogy with XML attribute
> processing (it is a fatal error to have duplicate attributes).
> 
> 6: I prefer b and reject a.  Bad charrefs are garbage, and bad
> (non-predefined) entity refs are an attempt to invoke a feature that's
> not supported.
> 
> 7: I'd like to see the requirements tightened here.  Specifically:
> 
>         href MUST be a LEIRI
> 
>         type MUST have the syntax of a RFC 2045 media type
> 
>         media MUST be a Name or comma-separated list of Names
> 
>         charset MUST be a Name
> 
>         alternate MUST be "yes" or "no"
> 
> or the PI is ignored.  Alternately I can live with ignoring just the
> bad pseudo-attribute.

I marked you are preferring f though it does not currently elaborate 
as you did on the specific conditions.  If we decide to go this route,
we will have to decide on the elaboration.

I was not sure which one(s) of a-e you could live with, so I didn't
try to indicate that (but if you let me know, I'll update the doc).

> 
> 8: prefer b.
> 
> 9: prefer a.
> 
> 10: reject a, can live with b, prefer c iii or c iv if my version of 7
> gets accepted.

I marked a, b, c iii has indicated.

I did not mark c iv because it does not reference 7, it references 7a
which I do not understand to be "your version of 7".

> 
> 11: prefer b iii 2
> 
> 12: prefer a.
> 
> 13: prefer a.
> 
> 14: prefer a.
> 
> 15: prefer a, can live with c.
> 
> --
> Go, and never darken my towels again!           John Cowan
>         --Rufus T. Firefly                      http://ccil.org/~cowan

Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 17:39:18 UTC