- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:16:25 +0200
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Oct 18, 2005, at 19:59, Laurens Holst wrote:
> Robin Berjon schreef:
>> (which I believe is useful since CSS should be extensible, or at
>> least that was my understanding)
>
> Why do you think that is the case?
Well, it was my understanding that CSS had been designed with in mind
the notion that it would be usable in situations other than HTML and
text-oriented XML documents, including notably mixed-namespace
documents (e.g. XHTML+SVG for instance). I understand that radically
different application derived from CSS (such as STTS for instance)
should use a different media type, but in the XHTML+SVG case that
would introduce a high cost (new media types aren't free) for little
to no value. If I have to have two separate style sheets to style my
XHTML+SVG document, it, well, sucks (sorry, but I can't find a more
technical description at the end of a long day ;). This also means
that CSS as applied to SVG has to be deprecated.
> CSS has no concept of namespaces like XML has, and thus extensions
> can conflict with other extensions and future evolutions. As such,
> I see no mechanism for extension, and as such it is technically not
> possible in CSS.
Yes I know that. It's a really sad pity but also a lost cause so it
wasn't the purpose of my post. The original comment as well as Ian's
response were talking about properties defined within the W3C, i.e.
not radically external to CSS but rather done in coordination with
the CSS WG (which certainly was the case with the SVG properties). I
thought that this was a reasonable assertion, and find it strange
that it would be unilaterally revoked over five years after it was
put into practice.
--
Robin Berjon
Senior Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:16:36 UTC