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

Shelby wrote on Thursday, January 2, 2003 at 11:11:15 PM:

> At 06:24 PM 1/2/2003 -0600, John Lewis wrote:
>>>>> Shelby Moore wrote:
>>>>> CSS selectors allows one to select elements of markup based on
>>>>> attributes which are not related to *semantics*.
>>>> Ian Hickson responded:
>>>> As an editor of the W3C Selectors Specification, I assure you,
>>>> that is most definitely not the intention of CSS selectors.
>>> Ian's "assurance" was false.
>> If you revised your original statement to "CSS selectors match
>> elements without regard to the elements' semantics,"

> That is equivalent to what I had written above.

As long as your original statement says "attributes," I disagree with
it. I agree with the statement I wrote, which is what I think you
meant to say, but which has a completely different meaning than your
original statement.

> Thank you! Thus CSS is orthogonal to markup. That is what I have
> been saying all along, even though Ian Hickson disagreed with that
> as quoted above.

I agree with what Ian wrote above, and I don't think it's inconsistent
with the revised statement.

> And XBL allows one to extend markup with new tags. Yet XBL also
> combines CSS and DOM dependencies in its syntax. So I hope you
> understand that XBL will make CSS and DOM dependent on markup.

Assuming for a second that XBL depends on CSS, how does that make
*CSS* dependent on markup? Note that I don't care if XBL is dependent
on anything because I don't know or use XBL. What I want to know is
how XBL's dependencies affect CSS's dependencies.


Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 08:11:51 UTC