Ryan Lee wrote:
>>>> For 1., I agree that behavior is a separate issue, but turning a URI
>>>> into a URL is a common enough occurence that it's worth including in
>>>> core. I am going to include it since I think we've all pretty much
>>>> stated our agreement and consider the matter resolved.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. Wouldn't there be some XLink term we could reuse here? (just
>>> wondering).
> Is there an XLink term you're thinking of, Emmanuel? I'm not very
> familiar with that spec.
No. I'm not that familiar with it either. I was just wondering. I'll
take a look.
> I came up with a couple new issues while looking over my style parsing
> code.
>
> 5. styleDomain and... styleResourceDomain? We make a distinction for
> different kinds of lenses (class vs. instance domain) but we don't for
> styling resources vs. styling properties. I wonder if we'd also have to
> distinguish styling classes vs. styling instances,
We argued about the necessity of having both lensDomain and
instanceLensDomain. I was against it because with FSL you could
unambiguously express both, but we eventually agreed to keep it as FSL
is not a must-be-supported selection language (only simple naming is).
If we have such a thing for lenses, I guess we should have it for
styles. And you're right, there is even more ambiguity here. Does the
style apply to the resource with URI A, to all resources that are
instances of class refered to by URI A, or to properties identified by
URI A? We probably want to express all of these, so we need vocabulary
constructs for them.
We could have:
- classStyleDomain
- instanceStyleDomain
- propertyStyleDomain
and I think it would be better to have:
- classLensDomain (as opposed to lensDomain)
- instanceLensDomain
> 6. Non-existent styleDomain for some styles. This does make sense if a
> style is only used in a fresnel:use relationship, but *Domain has been
> the definining one-step inference in implementation so far. Could we
> possibly say something like fresnel:styleDomain fresnel:null, where the
> idea is that the domain of the style is considered irrelevant? The
> style wouldn't be applied except where specified in fresnel:use.
Can't we just intepret the lack of fresnel:*Domain as the domain of a
style being irrelevant?
> 7. {container,property,etc.}Style are used to refer to a
> <something.css#a> resource in Chris' examples, I'm not sure what that's
> supposed to mean. Sorry for not remembering; I don't recall how that
> was supposed to accomplish something in practice?
These terms are closely related to the box model. This isn't to be part
of core.
--
Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Fri May 13 2005 - 06:41:27 EDT