- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:58:27 +0100
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Jim Ley schreef: >> I looked at the specification, and I couldn't find any contradiction in the >> guidelines for stylesheets. >> > > C. 14. says include a PI for style elements, C1 says don't include PI's... > Oh, right. I’d say that C.14 should be dropped, and replaced by a statement in a normative section that the user agent should recognise <style> and <link rel="stylesheet [alternate]"> elements and apply them appropriately. The only reason I can think of why the user agent would *not* recognise those is because it might be processed by a generic XML user agent with no specific support for XHTML, in which case the stylesheets will be worthless anyway because 99% of them assumes a default styling of XHTML, and class-type selectors and :link-type selectors won’t be matched either. >> It seems just nit-picking for an argument not to use XHTML, imho. >> > > No, it's nitpicking about mistakes in specification writing, if we're just > dealing with what works, then tag soup works great. > Ok. I hope the HTML WG will address your issues on the contradictions. ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2006 15:00:44 UTC