- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:42:01 +0200
- To: www-xml-stylesheet-comments@w3.org
This is a personal comment, not a WG response. On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:42:24 +0200, Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org> wrote: > Ok. So there is no specification at all defining what means > the lack of the media pseudo-attribute on the xml-stylesheet > PI and that behaviour is then, at this time, totally undefined > in ALL current browsers. It can be defined in CSSOM. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#requirements-on-user-agents-implementing > This is a severe architectural problem > that, again, cannot be solved on the CSS side since your spec > leaves it in the hands of the xml dialect. > > Quoting the document: > > This second edition incorporates all known errata as of the > publication date, clarifies several areas left unspecified in the > earlier edition. > > I am therefore raising an objection on this point since it does not > clarify this area left unspecified. > > The WG's response on the scoped stylesheet issue is not > satisfactory since, again from an architectural point of > view, this spec will be inconsistent with the forthcoming HTML5 > state of art. There's no reason xml-stylesheet needs to have feature parity with HTML5. In fact, it doesn't even have feature parity with HTML4. HTML4 has <link rel=stylesheet> and <style>, xml-stylesheet only has the equivalent for <link rel=stylesheet>. HTML5 has scoped="" for <style> only, not for <link rel=stylesheet>. It doesn't make sense to add scoped to xml-stylesheet when we lack the equivalent of <style>. I think xml-stylesheet does not need the equivalent of <style> or <style scoped>. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 06:42:36 UTC