W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2003

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

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 20:26:21 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20030104200709.0154ef00(null)>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

At 01:39 AM 1/5/2003 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> I have already replied to this twice, once in my last e-mail:
>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0074.html
>>> ...and once in the e-mail before that:
>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0074.html
>> What part of "which states that specification _completely_ controls
>> semantics?" do you not understand?
>There is no such statement anywhere.

Thank for finally admitting that!

> There doesn't need to be.

Axiomatically and by definition, specifications are never invisible or
implicit.  They are always explicit.  So if specifications wanted to
"_completely_ control semantics" then they would say that.

>Even if HTML stated that it wasn't the final word on the semantics

I assure you that HTML 4.01 spec does NOT explicitly state that it
"_completely_ control semantics".

>Just because _something_ can change the semantics, doesn't mean
>_everything_ can.

If _one_ thing can change the semantics of a specification, then it means
"specification does NOT _completely_ control semantics".

>There are multiple fundamental disagreements, those that I mentioned in
>that post are unrelated to semantics.

The issue of whether specification _completely_ controls semantics is the
most important fundamental question to resolve first.  Because it
determines whether any thing other than specification can change semantics.

>I take it some sample XBL (as requested) is out of the question?

It will be given _after_ we resolve the fundamental issue.

I disagree with your statements about XBL and XSLT, but that is irrelevant
at the moment.  First we must resolve the fundamental issue.

>But the implementation has nothing to do with its semantics; it's just a
>presentational aspect.

If the implementation violates the HTML 4.01 spec, then per my Axiomatic
Proof [1], it has changed the semantics.  Your examples are useless against
the Axiomatic Proof.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0073.html
(see bottom for Axiomatic Proof)

-Shelby Moore
Received on Saturday, 4 January 2003 21:25:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:05 UTC