- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:29:50 +0000
- To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>
On 11 Jan 2008, at 08:11, Dmitry Turin wrote: > What is "doesn't support CSS": > 1) doesn't use for rendering ? > 2) or doesn't use to specify attribute values ? Both (assuming this proposal made it into the spec, obviously 2 wouldn't be "CSS" if it didn't). > Nature of UA may be so, that it doesn't render at all - > so (1) is absolutely right in this particular case. > But (2) is not bound with nature of UA, > so there is no any restriction to use CSS to assign values for > attributes. It means that user agents, as well as having a parser for markup, MUST also have a parser for CSS. > DD> We are dealing with Cascading STYLE Sheets here. > Ortodox-ness. Separation of concerns works. >>> I'm against to enter new values for @type or @rel _for this >>> purpose_ , >>> because brain will must keep this devision without any benefit. > DD> Those are other issues, which I object too as well. > DD> ... though since they don't put semantics into the style layer. > 1) you object against new values for @type or @rel ? Why ? > 2) you object against assignment of attributes in separate file ? > Why ? I'll raise those issues with the appropriate working groups if and when I'm happy with the way I can express my thoughts about them. Lets keep _this_ discussion about CSS. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 08:30:11 UTC