- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:37:23 -0400
- To: www-voice@w3.org
Sorry, I mis-addressed the previous message which should have gone to www-style. - Al At 09:53 AM 2003-07-31, Al Gilman wrote: >[individual comment, not reviewed in PF group.] > >General Reference: > >http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/ > >1. :out-of-range > >In > > 3.1.3. :in-range and :out-of-range > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#pseudo-range > >there appears to be a mis-use of XForms terminology. > >Where it says > ><quote >cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#pseudo-range"> > > v... In summary: an element is > :out-of-range when it does not accurately reflect the state of the > model. > ></quote> > >..should it not say "the state of the instance"? Suggest you cross-check >with XForms. > >A possible re-wording of the whole paragraph would be: > ><draft >class="possible clearer"> > >The :in-range and :out-of-range pseudo-classes are defined with respect to the >limitations of the rendered or concrete interface, as opposed to the :valid >and :invalid pseudo-classes defined above which reflect the logical >limitations >imposed by the application or business logic through the model. > >A rendered element is :out-of-range when the value in the bound instance that >it should display is beyond its capability to display. For example, a slider >which can show values from 1-10 when the value in the instance is 11 would >have :out-of-range true and :in-range false. > ></draft> > >2. What's a form element? > ><quote >cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#pseudo-required-value"> > > 3.1.4. :required and :optional > > A form element is :required or :optional if a value for it is, > respectively, required or optional before the form it belongs to is > submitted. Elements that are not form elements are neither required > nor optional. This spec does not defined what is a form element. > ></quote> > >The last two sentences taken together form a semantic hole in the >specification. This will lead to semantically-incompatible use by >different users and implementers and the feature will become disreputable >and will be avoided in practice. Unsuitable in a specification. > >Consider instead: > >Cite specifically the items in the XForms schema and HTML specification >which have the intended semantics, and extrapolate gracefully from there. > >Say things like > >processors MUST recognize the following conditions as :required and :optional >where the XForms schema applies:... > >processors MUST recognize the following conditions as :required and >:optional where HTML 4.01 semantics applies by specification:... > >processors MAY recognize these pseudo-classes in formats which use clearly >equivalent semantics > >processors SHOULD NOT recognize either :required or :optional in the >absence of >any of these conditions. > >Al
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 10:37:28 UTC