W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Supporting propriety "Extensions"

From: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:41:50 +0100
Message-ID: <421C5DEE.8060202@re.be>
To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
CC: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Werner Donné wrote:
>> I fail to see why the W3C would want to set up yet another
>> registration organisation.
> They do not.

You rely on the fact that the number of browser vendors is low
at the moment and you forget that the scope of CSS is wider than
just browsers.

When demand for prefixes increases things will have to be organised

>> We have enough ways on the Internet
>> to distinguish companies, institutions and individuals.
> Yes, but I think that is besides the point.
>> To me, XML namespaces seems to be the best approach, because it
>> can rely on domain name registration. You can encode it in a URL,
>> as well as in a URN if you want. It is also a hierarchical approach,
>> because of the nature of URIs.
> Making things more complicated is not necessarily good. Besides, you 
> forget that the current policy is already widely accepted. I think a lot 
> of browser vendors would complain if it was changed. You would have to 
> come up with a lot better arguments to convince all of them.

I am not making things more complicated, but rather much simpler. Only one
sentence in the @namespace specification must be modified. This doesn't
even interfere with anything.

Nothing existing is removed, so browser vendors have no reason to complain.
Note that currently the property extensions are simply encoded in the
property names. One can continue to do this.

>> The W3C is making more and more concepts orthogonal. My proposal
>> goes into that direction. Note also that XML namespaces is a W3C
>> standard, so why not use it completely?
> Because it does not fit for extending CSS? CSS is not an XML based 
> language. Although some people would love CSS if it was, it is not.

It is used for processing XML and HTML. I would expect the emphasis
to go towards XML. CSS may not have the XML syntax, but it is very
XML based indeed. Or do you believe HTML will not become legacy one
day? There are several W3C specifications that point to such an

And how can namespaces not fit for extending CSS? As in XML, it makes
it possible to have "property modules" and to introduce orthogonality.


Werner Donné  --  Re BVBA
Engelbeekstraat 8
B-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803	e-mail: werner.donne@re.be
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 10:42:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:17 UTC