- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 03:41:13 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 10:13:29 PM, Ian wrote: IH> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote: >> >> Existing text >> >> Style sheet >> A set of statements that specify presentation of a document. >> >> (OK, but very general. Covers CSS, DSSL, XSL, sXBL and indeed Java, Python >> pretty much any 'set of statements' that produce presentation) IH> What isn't clear to me is why you would even consider looking in the CSS IH> spec when you are considering non-CSS languages. >> Suggested text: >> >> Style sheet >> A set of statements that specify presentation of a document. IH> I don't understand why this definition (without more text as it currently IH> has) is in any way useful. Its quoted unchanged from CSS 2.1. IH> If you consider XSL to be a stylesheet, note that it doesn't match the IH> definition above anyway. >> CSS style sheet >> A set of statements, expressed in CSS, that specify >> presentation of a document. IH> The rest of the specification refers to "style sheets", not "CSS style IH> sheets", throughout. Certainly we won't agree to putting "CSS" in front of IH> every occurance of the word "style sheet", that would make it unreadable. OK, so add that. "in this specification, the term "style sheet" is considered to mean a CSS style sheet". IH> These proposals do not seem to be intended to make the spec clearer. Of course they are! Come off it Ian, I know you want to push back on most of these suggestions but really, its a simple request for clarification. CSS 2.1 does not need to define all style sheets for all languages. Its as simple as that. Definitions in specs get re-used in other specs. So, be clear that your definition is of a CSS style sheet. Its that simple. IH> There aren't actually any ambiguities here unless you specifically IH> are trying to misread the spec. Or unless you are trying to somehow define what other style sheet languages do. IH> If you would like us to mark this issue as unresolved in the disposition IH> of comments, let us know. However, as it currently stands, we reject this IH> proposed change on the grounds that it would merely make the specification IH> more confusing. I will convey the rejection to the WGs. Its a shame that you resist so strongly makin the spec clearer. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2005 01:42:09 UTC