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

Re: Extend use of namespaces

From: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:41:17 -0600 (MDT)
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <344990332.19290.1284824477347.JavaMail.root@zimbra.volantis.com>
> 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 believe that a specification should stand alone, I don't think that someone should have to be privy to the whole history of a specification in order to be able to read it and understand why it was added and how it should be used. If a specification is ambiguous then acknowledge it and fix it, don't rely on some earlier specification to address the issue. I was concerned that Peter said the specification had been purposely been made 'vague'. Surely specifications should be as clear as possible.

I would focus on the feedback if it was actually addressing the issues I raised but instead it is just along the lines of:
* "I didn't intend that."
* "I don't think that we need that."
* "I don't think that is a problem."

No one has addressed the underlying issues that I have raised:
* Vender prefix / versioning mess.
* Modularization.

> >
> > 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.

In that case the specification needs to be corrected to match the author's intent.

> > 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
> challenge.

Fine, then for now could everyone please ignore the syntax I use and forget that it wasn't intended to address these issues and provide me some real constructive feedback on why allowing CSS identifiers to be qualified by / grouped into namespaces is a bad idea and unnecessary. As part of that could you explain how the current vendor prefix mess is going to be sorted out. I would appreciate it if you could do it in response to my other email that provides concrete examples of how namespaces would help address those issues.
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2010 15:41:50 UTC

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