W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Extend use of namespaces

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:23:57 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9=-bHcwvh6tjNrs63Tv4Kby7ec8H2h=oq_x84@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Paul Duffin
>> > 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.
>> Considerable thought ? Because it lets you infer a usage pattern one
>> of
>> the original editors is explicitly disagreeing with ?
> Because it clearly is intended to be more general than the original document and I am crediting the authors/reviewers and all those with making considered decisions to write the specification as they had over the 9 years since it was originally proposed.
> As far as I can tell none of the authors of the *current specification* have commented on this. I don't know what input Peter had on that and am not criticizing him personally but I do know how ideas evolve and change so what he may have intended when he wrote it is not necessarily what the current authors intend.

Anne van Kesteren, who sent the first response on this thread, is
listed as a current editor.

> I also know that it is very difficult (impossible?) to write technical specifications / documents that have no holes, gaps or ambiguities so it is possible that I am reading too much into it.

You are.  ^_^

>> > Personally, I find the namespaces specification well written and its
>> > intent and purpose very clear.
>> If it can interpreted to mean something its authors believe it did not
>> intend
>> then its purpose may not be so clear and thus its writing would be
>> deficient
>> in this respect.
>> I strongly agree that is we did need to add namespaces *to* CSS it
>> should use
>> a different syntax than that used *by* CSS to referenced namespaces in
>> documents.
> Lets assume for arguments sake that we did need to add namespaces to CSS. What syntax would you use?

That depends entirely on what problems we are trying to solve.

Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 20:24:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC