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

RE: Extend use of namespaces

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:08:03 +0000
To: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E27D7ACF0@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Paul Duffin
> 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.

'Crediting' them with allowing for your interpretation may be convenient
but it doesn’t make it correct or legitimate.

Feature proposals are considered on their own merits, not the amount of 
credit you give spec authors for implying your design.

> 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.

The absence of anyone's comments does not establish anything. Given that 
most of the prose you have quoted to support your position was already 
present in Peter's original draft [1] - albeit sometimes worded slightly 
differently - you are arguing that a change of editor combined with 
silence from the current one(s) somehow proves your interpretation...

You also conveniently assume that ideas can only have 'evolved' to support
your view with no other evidence than the fact that time has passed.

I suggest focusing on the actual feedback. Assigning more significance to 
the silence of one editor than the contrary feedback of another is unlikely
to be productive.
[1] http://www.w3.org/1999/06/25/WD-css3-namespace-19990625/

> 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.

As Tab said: you are.

> Lets assume for arguments sake that we did need to add namespaces to
> CSS. What syntax would you use?

I think you might have this backwards. We can assume for the sake of 
argument that we can easily agree on such a syntax once we have established 
the need to add namespaces to CSS. Convincing the WG of this need is your 

Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 21:08:37 UTC

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