- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:21:13 +0200
- To: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style@w3.org
Quoting Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>: > * CSS3-UI is self-contradictory regarding its dependence on XForms. It is the other way around. XForms depends on CSS3-UI for styling. Also, everything XForms says is non-normative and therefore does not have to be followed. > * CSS3-UI conflicts with the XForms 1.0 Appendix F definitions it is > supposed to depend on. Again, it is the other way around. It is also unclear to me how you could possible think that normative content depends on a non normative appendix. > * CSS3-UI creates a definition of the term "read-only" that conflicts > with the definition in the HTML 4.01 Recommendation, a spec that it's > supposed to interoperate with and that predates it by over four years. This is exactly why people ask for clarification with reflect to editing contexts. (There is no conflict with the definition in general, only in a specific case. If you want to make points, please be careful what you acuse a spec of.) And I believe people have been asking for clarification on that now and several sensible suggestions have been made by people from the WYSIWYG editor "area". Kind regards, Anne -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2005 11:21:29 UTC