- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:17:40 +0200
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Laurens Holst wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: >> Norm's request is extremely reasonable, I would say even too much so. >> The CSS spec already acknowledges the existences of implementations >> applying it to specific tree technologies (not the christmas tree I'm >> sorry to notice, but what the heck). All he said was *if* an >> implementation applies CSS to XML, then it SHOULD (I would very >> definitely say MUST), use xml:id. > > If you changed that to "All he said was *if* an implementation applies > CSS to XML, *and* it supports xml:id, then it SHOULD (I would very > definitely say MUST), use xml:id." it would be acceptable, although > perhaps misplaced :). That's like saying "if an implementation supports xml:id, then it must support xml:id". It has limited usefulness. > However I agree that CSS has no say in whether an > XML application that supports CSS should also support xml:id or not, > just like it mustn’t specify that an HTML application must support the > class attribute. Well, I guess if that's the thinking we'll have to look elsewhere than at the W3C for specifications that encourage interoperability instead of leaving things up to the monkeys that thought <FONT> was a good idea. *sigh* -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2005 17:17:37 UTC