- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 19:33:32 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Shelby Moore wrote:
>
> I can not count 218 lines quickly. Please reply succinctly with the
> information.
Very well, in order to save you the effort, here are the relevant
parts (note that had you searched for your own text using a search
tool, you would have found the my answers, since I quoted you):
| > 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.
|
| XBL doesn't _have_ any portions which allow non-conformance, so it
| doesn't have any to explicitly point out. If you disagree, I will have
| to request examples.
|
|
| > If an implementation change violates the specification, then it is
| > non-conforming and thus it is a semantic change.
|
| By your logic, CSS is "non-conforming", due to this rule:
|
| p:empty { border: solid blue; }
|
| ...as I mentioned in an earlier post.
|
|
| > You must differentiate between "conforming" and "non-conforming"
| > meaning.
|
| Non-conforming meaning is, by its very nature, irrelevant. Would the
| stylesheet given above indicate that CSS could create non-conforming
| meaning?
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0109.html
>> You have not yet answered _any_ of the points and counters given in
>> that post.
>
> I am not going to participate in your attempts at extremely verbose
> non-useful discussion.
It is interesting and somewhat telling to note that you don't consider
counter arguments to your statements to be useful.
Could you explain why my list of features that XBL has and which XSLT
does not is not "useful discussion" given the subject line?
--
Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL
"meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 5 January 2003 14:33:34 UTC