- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:15:17 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 7/5/05, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote: > > Mark Birbeck schreef: > >>It would make sense to me that the underlying languages that > >>are being styled specify the pseudoclasses they allow. Having > >>CSS specify them seems to limit the number of pseudoclasses > >>artificially and complicate the CSS system for all styled documents. > > > > I could not agree more! XForms requires a few pseudo-classes, yet they are > > still not available in any full recommendation. > > When taking those pseudo-classes out of the CSS working group's control, > there are some problems that I can see, mainly with naming: > > 1. It is desirable that there is unity in the pseudo-classes that are > used. E.g. :checked must be applicable both to HTML Forms and XForms. > > 2. CSS is not namespaced. Therefore, there can be only one authority > assigning names, or there *will* be conflicts. That authority is the CSS > WG, except for when it concerns vendor-specific extensions which are > prefixed with - or _. Hmm, what mechanism do we have for dealing with naming conflicts... there must be something... oh yeah, namespaces. They've been around much longer than CSS has. But that's actually not even needed here. While both standards need :checked, only one will apply at a time since an element can only reside in one library of elements (e.g. XForms or HTML). When the underlying layer is asked are you (:checked) each will use it's own mechanism for determining that but no naming conflict exists. Having the same name for the same semantic stucture is a good thing actually. Orion Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 13:15:23 UTC