Re: [css3-namespace] Last call comments from XHTML2 WG

I've hit reply to the latest in the thread, but this message is in further 
response to Bjoern and the thread in general.

I would like to point out that the W3C process document specifically 
states that last call commenters are not required to develop full 
spec-ready solutions to the problems they identify.  It is the 
responsibility of the CSS working group to come up with a proposed 
solution and then ask the commenter if they are satisfied.

I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation in this email thread for 
why the CSS group is choosing to violate the axiom that Steven has 
described clearly below (and just as clearly in his last call comment).

What I have seen on this thread is a last call comment being rejected 
without the rejection even being approved by the CSS working group (or so 
I learned today from the chair during the Hypertext Coordination Group 
telecon).  The comment is being made in good faith about a long-standing 
principle that the CSS working group appears to be breaking.  A more 
positive, good faith response that is reflective of consideration by the 
full working group is warranted to explain why the break is happening and 
why it is preferrable (if it is indeed the decision to stay with the 
breakage), what authors must do to work around the problem, and to propose 
spec-ready text for these explanations.

Thank you,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Staff Member
Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab

Blog RSS feed:

"Steven Pemberton" <> 
Sent by:
03/28/2008 09:11 AM

"Bjoern Hoehrmann" <>
cc, "Forms WG" <>, "XHTML WG" 
Re: [css3-namespace] Last call comments from XHTML2 WG

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:18:04 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <> 
> Mark asked for guidance on how to choose between multiple methods, that
> request is sound and already addressed in the right place. You on the
> other hand assert that default namespace declarations in style sheets as
> proposed in the draft come as a surprise and special attention needs to
> be drawn to this surprise. I don't think there is any surprise, and thus
> have a hard time to understand exactly how we could address the concern.
> If you could propose specific edits, that would be most helpful.

I didn't say it was a surprise. I said it was contrary to an axiom of CSS 
up to now that future additions to CSS don't change how previous parts of 
the language work. That is part of the forward-compatible parsing rules of 
                 If I apply the forward-compatible parsing rules to a 
CSS(n+1) stylesheet, 
stripping it of its CSS(n+1) features, I will get a CSS(n) stylesheet. 
None of the rules left change their meaning in the process.

This has always been true in CSS, and the namespace selectors spec changes 

A note pointing out that default namespaces alter the way that type 
selectors work compared with earlier versions of CSS, and if you want to 
avoid that you should always use explicit qualified names would do the 

Best wishes,


Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 16:35:16 UTC