Re: Extend use of namespaces

----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > 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.
> 

He did but he did not say that the CSS Namespace was not intended to be used in other parts of CSS or that it was not a general CSS namespace mechanism.

> 
> > 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. ^_^
> 

Well in that case it needs correcting.

> 
> >
> > 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.
> 

How about trying to improve the vendor prefix mess, specifically when they are implementing CSS specification that is not yet a recommendation:
* As a page author I shouldn't have to duplicate a property 4 or 5 times adding the various vendor prefixes when all the vendors are implementing exactly the same version of a specification.
* Similarly, I shouldn't have to duplicate a whole rule 4 or 5 times to make use of vendor prefixed selectors. This is not normally such a big issue as properties but only because vendors don't seem to prefix the selectors at all.
* CSS 3 (in combination with HTML 5) is supposed to make authoring easier but at the moment it has actually made the problem much worse because of these issues.

How about supporting proper modularizing of CSS:
* I should be able to merge 2 or more CSS 'modules' into one 'profile' without having to rely on cooperation between the 'module' designers to ensure no conflicts in property names, selectors, etc.
* The CSS specification places the W3C in an elevated position as the only organization that can create 'standard' features, i.e. those that do not start with a -. So even though WAP CSS is a standard from a well known standards body they had to use 'vendor extensions' to add their features which placed them at the same level as completely proprietary browser vendor properties.

Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 21:07:36 UTC