- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:53:08 -0400
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- CC: "J. King" <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. King" <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com> > To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> > Cc: "www-style" <www-style@w3.org> > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:06 PM > Subject: Re: [CSS21] Please endorse xml:id > > > | On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:59:41 -0400, Andrew Fedoniouk > | <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote: > | > | > Too many features there are HTML specific or with > | > HTML only in mind. > | > | Like what? > | > > "CSS2.1 aims to reflect what CSS features are reasonably widely implemented > for HTML and XML languages in general (rather than only for a particular XML > language, or only for HTML)." > (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/about.html) > > At least this statement tells us that CSS is designed only for HTML and some > XML languages. Is this a joke, because it seems to say the opposite to me. At best you could say that this statement indicates CSS favors an HTML-style language. > And this peculiar statement: > "A user agent that supports XHTML [XHTML], but not HTML (as listed in the > previous sentence) is not considered an HTML user agent for the purpose of > conformance with this specification." > ( http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html ) I don't see the issue here. HTML != XHTML. Therefore, why would you call an XHTML-only user agent an "HTML user agent"?
Received on Sunday, 26 June 2005 05:53:13 UTC