W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2006

Re: [css3-namespace] Conformance with CSS forward compatible parsing rules

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:20:09 +0900
Message-Id: <5A523317-90E6-4A82-9AA7-8FE11B77ABCA@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

Hi fantasai,

Le 19 sept. 06 à 13:47, fantasai a écrit :
> karl@w3.org wrote:
>> Hi, This is a QA Review comment for "CSS Module: Namespaces"  
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/ 2006-08-28  
>> 2nd WD
>> About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-namespace-20060828/#intro
>> [[[ It should be noted that a CSS client that does not support  
>> this module
>> will (if it properly conforms to CSS forward compatible parsing  
>> rules) ignore
>> all @namespace rules, as well as all style rules that make use of  
>> namespace
>> qualified names. The syntax of delimiting namespace prefixes in  
>> CSS was
>> deliberately chosen so that these CSS clients would ignore the  
>> style rules
>> rather than possibly match them incorrectly. ]]]
>> If this information is important for this module, it doesn't  
>> belong to the
>> introduction at all but to the Conformance section.
> This information is just a note. It explains the choice of syntax  
> in this
> module and points out a consequence of that syntax when implemented  
> as part
> of CSS. That's all. I've left it therefore in the Introduction  
> (which is
> explicitly non-normative), but I changed the first part of the  
> paragraph to
> read
>   "Note that a CSS client that does not support this module will..."
> Perhaps that makes it a bit clearer that it's just a note.

A client that doesn't support something… IS specifically a  
conformance requirement. It is not appropriate in the introduction.  
The introduction is about the technology, the Conformance section  
about how implementation behaves with regards to the requirements of  
this technology.
It has to be in the Conformance section or in the appropriate section  
of the specification. If it is not a requirement at all, remove it  
from the introduction. But there might future comments for unclear  
conformance statements with regards to the class of products.

>> No link is given to these "CSS forward compatible parsing rules"  
>> nor there
>> are explained in the document.
> Fixed. I've added a link to CSS2.1's Syntax chapter, which describes
> the "forward-compatible parsing rules".
> Let me know if this addresses your comment.

First one still open.
Second one addressed.

Many Thanks.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 07:20:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:26 UTC