- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:12:06 +0100
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:55:05 +0100, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com] >> Sent: Thursday, 2010 January 14 8:31 >> To: Grosso, Paul; public-xml-core-wg@w3.org >> Subject: Re: AssocSS issue holman-1 and holman-2 >> >> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:34:49 +0100, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> >> wrote: >> >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-stylesheet- >> comments/2009Dec/ >> > 0002 >> > >> > "is there any normative section that describes how a user agent >> > is to interpret the [pseudo-attribute] values?" >> > >> > and >> > >> > "what is the interpretation of the order of the links?" >> I thought we had agreed to not reference HTML4 for the semantics of the >> pseudo-attributes. > > I'm not sure what I think here. I thought Henry said on yesterday's > call that we should put back a reference to HTML 4.0. Or maybe we > need to phrase it some other way. > > I'm open to suggestions that address Ken's (first) issue. I think we should leave it out of scope for this spec. We can say explicitly that it's out of scope and left to other specs to define. >> I think this is fine, although I'd also be fine with specifying the >> order. > > We are specifying an order. We just say that document-external links are before PIs, but we don't say what the internal order of the PIs is. > What we can't do is tell the application > what the order means. Agreed. > In some cases, it will mean to use all of them, > and in other cases, it might mean to use the first and ignore the rest > or something else. > > paul > -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 15:12:46 UTC