- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:46:59 +0900
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Le 21 nov. 2006 à 01:07, David Dorward a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 05:00:35PM +0100, Johannes Koch wrote:
>
>> I read something between the lines, "If you have a style element
>> in your
>> XHTML document, and you want to make it compatible with an HTML and a
>> somewhat generic XML renderer, then use an xml-stylesheet PI
>> referencing
>> the style element's id."
>
> That's the interpretation I'd put on it BUT ...
>
> * Why is that in the HTML compatibility guidelines and not an
> appendix for generic XML parser compatibility guidelines?
> * Doesn't it contradict the advice of C1?
> * Why <style> but not <link>?
> * Why do authors have to read "between the lines" of a specification?
Why asking so many questions to hide answers? ;)
For the last bit which is unrelated to the issue. Specifications will
always be a land of interpretations. Perfection doesn't exist. We can
try to remove ambiguities, to make things simpler to understand, etc.
but there will be always room for interpretation.
So I have a precise question: Did you have a practical real problem
created by the section C14?
Please give a pointer to a document online where you give your
interpretation of the problems, then we can start to discuss about
the C14.
Thanks
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 00:47:10 UTC