Re: [CSS21] Please endorse xml:id

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

>| > "A user agent that supports XHTML [XHTML], but not HTML (as listed in 
>the
>| >  previous sentence) [,] is not considered [as] an HTML user agent for 
>the
>| > purpose of conformance with this specification."
>| >
>| > Correct me if I am wrong.
>|
>|    I agree with the comma, but not the "as".
>
>Thanks.
>
>I understand this statement as:
>
>1) Only pure HTML UA is considered for purpose of conformance with this 
>specification.
>2) Pure XHTML/CSS UA cannot be considered as "interoperable implementation".
>  
>
No, it says that a user agent that DOES support XHTML but NOT HTML (thus 
being an XML-only UA, excluding most current browsers) will not be 
considered an ‘HTML user agent’. Therefore, it does not have to conform 
to the HTML-specific rules that are in the CSS specifications.

That’s how I understand it, and that’s how it seems it was intended. 
Also, you are taking this out of context, the sentence before says "An 
HTML user agent is one that supports the HTML 2.x, HTML 3.x, or HTML 4.x 
specifications". This example elaborating on that line merely serves to 
illustrate that even though XHTML 1.0 builds upon HTML 4.x, it by itself 
does not mean the UA is an HTML one (because it is an XML language and 
not an HTML one, but more importantly, because it is not in the 
aforementioned list).

>Does it mean that CSS contain constructions which can be demonstarted
>only in HTML and not in XHTML?
>
If by that you mean that there are specific rules for HTML UAs, then 
yes. CSS behaves differently in XHTML, e.g. on the body element. However 
if an UA is not an HTML one, those rules do not apply and they do not 
have to be implemented, so they do not ‘lock in’ the CSS specification 
to HTML.

As for the CR exit condition that there need be two complete 
implementations, the differences between an HTML and non-HTML 
implementation are so small that they can not be considered to prevent a 
non-HTML user agent of being considered a ‘complete’ implementation. 
Note that even if it would, the meaning of ‘complete’ does not equal 
‘conformant’.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.

Received on Sunday, 26 June 2005 18:20:58 UTC