- From: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:44:48 -0600 (MDT)
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com> > wrote: > > Actually, based on the CSS Namespace specification I think that you > > are mistaken. > > > > The CSS namespace specification > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-css3-namespace-20080523/#css-qnames > > says: > > * "It does not define where such names are valid or what they mean: > > that depends on their context and is defined by a host language..." > > * "CSS qualified names can be used in (for example) selectors and > > property values as described in other modules" > > * "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." > > > > It explicitly says that it is intended to be used in property values > > and not just "to let CSS address namespaces used in the styled > > document". > > > > "(for example)" implies to me that these are not the only usages to > > be made of them, and that the intent was that they would also be > > used in other places. The only specification that uses them at the > > moment is the selectors but that is not > > The specification there is just being overly general in its language. > CSS Namespaces were created solely for the purpose that Peter > described - to allow you to address namespaces as they exist in HTML > and XML-based languages. > I don't dispute the initial motivation for adding it but it seems to me that the language used in the specification indicates that considerable thought went into making it suitable for use as a general mechanism for namespacing CSS identifiers in general. Personally, I find the namespaces specification well written and its intent and purpose very clear.
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 17:45:21 UTC