- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:50:35 +1000
- To: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:41:06 +1000, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: > Simon Pieters wrote: >> Not saying that you do, but if you are implying it is a good thing to >> scare authors away from using XHTML by having unnecessary differences > > The ideal for XML + CSS is that, for a marked up text document (as > against something like SVG), given the document and the style sheet, it > should be possible to render it accurately, at least for non-behavioural > features, without any prior knowledge of the actual XML application in > use. How is that ideal? You'd always need to know the markup language for the structural elements and the nesting of them, etc. Besides, for all text documents distributed over the web you'd use a non-proprietary language, ideally. > There are still limitations in the ability to do this, and things > like embedded style sheets are real problems; but it is the target. > > To achieve this and preserve the HTML special case for XHTML, one > would really need to include an extra attribute in every XHTML > style sheet to tell a user agent that did not know about XHTML that > it needed to use special rules. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:51:41 UTC