W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > April 2010

RE: Transition Request: PER Request for Associating Style Sheets with XML documents 1.0 (Second Edition)

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:49:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3021305BEAE@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: <timbl@w3.org>, <plh@w3.org>, <ralph@w3.org>, <liam@w3.org>, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3t-comm@w3.org>, <chairs@w3.org>, <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Daniel is correct that his comments (and objections) are not
yet reflected in the DoC referenced by my Transition Request email.

Daniel's comments came in a bit later than others, and there 
remains an outstanding action item for that DoC to be updated
accordingly, and I hadn't realized that action wasn't yet
completed when I sent in the transisition request.

I will push to get that action completed as soon as possible.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
> Sent: Friday, 2010 April 16 6:51
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: timbl@w3.org; plh@w3.org; ralph@w3.org; liam@w3.org; Ian Jacobs;
> w3t-comm@w3.org; chairs@w3.org; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Transition Request: PER Request for Associating Style
> Sheets with XML documents 1.0 (Second Edition)
> Le 15/04/10 21:38, Grosso, Paul a écrit :
> > Several editor's drafts of this Second Edition have been
> > published, most recently that of 2010 March 22 at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/03/xml-stylesheet/
> > and comments have been solicited and reflected in this
> > latest draft PER as indicated in a Disposition of Comments at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/2010/01/disposition.html.
> I think I made a substantive comment ([2], [3] and [4)] about this last
> editor's draft the very same day it was released, I quote, "for further
> general review by W3C members" [1]. That comment could appear in DoC...
> Am I the only one here seeing "for further general review" means "for
> comments"?
> I am maintaining my objection despite of Simon Pieters' personal
> answer in first part of [5].
> I think that saying xml-stylesheet is underspecified about the
> media pseudo-attribute because a document that has even not reached
> FPWD status may appear some time in the future is a flaw. It may
> also not appear or be substantially changed. In the meantime, we have
> an architectural issue that goes against commonly implemented practice
> and leaves totally unspecified something that should be specified
> because the Web as we know it deeply relies on it.
> Please note that an xml-stylesheet- and CSS-conforming user agent may
> decide to NOT implement the CSS OM, leaving this issue unresolved.
> Not specifying the absence of the 'media' pseudo-attr was certainly,
> seen from the CSS landscape, a mistake in the first xml-stylesheet REC
> since no other spec specifies it.
> It's then, seen from here, something that should be resolved as errata,
> hence my refusal of Paul Grosso's answer in [6].
> What does the lack of the 'media' pseudo-attr exactly mean? That
> question remains open (since june 1999).
> I'm fine with the answer about scoped stylesheets even if I regret it
> and find it counter-productive.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2010JanMar/0100.html
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-
> comments/2010Mar/0000.html
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-
> comments/2010Apr/0000.html
> [4]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-
> comments/2010Apr/0002.html
> [5]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-
> comments/2010Apr/0003.html
> [6]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet-
> comments/2010Apr/0001.html
> </Daniel>
> --
> W3C CSS WG, Co-Chair
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 13:49:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:40 UTC