- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 12:14:34 -0600
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
At 04:21 PM 1/5/2003 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote: >DH> This seems to be the crucial point. Does XBL have any more impact on >DH> semantics than CSS already does? > >No, it doesn't. Wrong. Because CSS states that its non-conforming portions are optional for conforming UAs. So a UA can be CSS conforming and HTML conforming: ====== CSS can do non-conforming per an exact quote from CSS spec!! http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#display-prop "Conforming HTML user agents may ignore the 'display' property." ======= Whereas, XBL is unable to isolate its portions which allow non-conformance. So there is no way to be both XBL and HTML conforming at the same time. That is in a NUTSHELL, what my point has been all along. Only now, have I been able to state it so succinctly. [...] [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0087.html (follow all cited references within link above also) [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0092.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0094.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0101.html -Shelby Moore
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 13:13:37 UTC