Re: [CSS21] Unclear applicability to XML

On Monday, October 17, 2005, 7:54:51 AM, Ian wrote:

IH> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Because the spec sometimes implies that and other times does not; 
>> >> because you sometimes imply that and other times not.
>> 
>> IH> With all due respect, I think you would have an [easier] time understanding
>> IH> both the CSS specs and my own e-mails if you read what was written, 
>> IH> instead of trying to read what might or might not be implied.
>> 
>> I agree, so change the spec to state clearly what it is aimed at and
>> then I can stop trying to guess.

IH> As I already mentioned, the spec already, in plain english, answers your
IH> questions as early as the abstract:

IH> # CSS 2.1 is a style sheet language that allows authors and users to 
IH> # attach style (e.g., fonts and spacing) to structured documents (e.g., 
IH> # HTML documents and XML applications).

IH> Now, it is true that other specifications have overloaded the term 
IH> "document"

note that is says "XML applications" not "XML documents"

IH> to mean specific things, but in the absence of a definition, I
IH> suggest that the plain english meaning is the default one should use.

That would be a useful first step.

IH> After all, specifications have also overloaded the terms "overloaded", 
IH> "term", "specific", "definition", "plain", "default" and "use", but you 
IH> still presumably understood the previous sentence.

IH> If you still disagree, please suggest specific changes to the abstract or
IH> other parts of the spec that would satisfy your request. I trust I have 
IH> explained the applicability of CSS to XML in enough detail by now that you
IH> understand what was intended and can therefore write text that you believe
IH> matches this.

Will do.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 14:30:47 UTC