Re: XBL is (mostly) W3C redundant, and CSS is wrong W3C layer for semantic behavior *markup*

On 1/1/03 11:44 PM, "Shelby Moore" <> wrote:

> Interesting to ponder how our discussion of semantics impacts CSS
> pseudo-elements (and pseudo-classes), e.g. ::visited or ::first-line:

More precisely (for CSS2):

 pseudo-elements (and pseudo-classes), e.g. :first-line (and :visited)

or for CSS3:

 pseudo-elements (and pseudo-classes), e.g. ::first-line (and :visited)

> "Neither pseudo-elements nor pseudo-classes appear in the document source
> or document tree."

Note the immediately preceding sentence in the text:

"The exceptions are ':first-child', which can be deduced from the document
tree, and ':lang()', which can be deduced from the document tree in some
cases. "

In general, the sentence you quoted is not precisely correct, and should
probably be stricken from CSS2.1, since I believe the part of it that is
correct is already covered by the preceding prose description in the spec.

For more precise statements regarding pseudo-elements and pseudo-classes and
the document tree, I suggest viewing the Selectors spec

and searching for the text "document tree".  Each pseudo-class (and
pseudo-element) has a more precise statement regarding this topic.

> In last few posts, we are discussing definitions related to semantic
> content _markup_.
> The pseudo-elements also have semantics, but they are not explicitly marked
> up.

... not necessarily explicitly marked up.  Some pseudo-classes can be
inferred from the markup alone.

> They are inferred and/or created elements (or states) by the
> presentation layer.

Sometimes (perhaps most of the time).

> So in this case of pseudo-elements, I assert it is
> appropriate for the semantic binding to be at the CSS layer, since they do
> not exist above presentation layer.

I'm not touching that one since it is clear from the thread that the
meanings of some of the terms used in that sentence are

> I realize they are already semantically bound at CSS layer.  I just wanted
> to test our discussion to see if it generalizes.

Or that one.


[I can't believe I have been drawn into responding to this thread.  Ah well,
good to get the first mistake of the year over with.]

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 05:38:57 UTC