Re: AW: Styling class proposal

From: Ryan Lee <>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:11:23 -0400

Chris Bizer wrote:
> Hi Ryan and Emmanuel,


>>As Stefano and I have agreed, CSS instructions should not be part of
>>core because view portability is not one of our goals. Thus CSS
>>instructions won't be interepreted by everybody (e.g., not all will
>>place the CSS instructions into style="" attributes on XHTML elements).
>> It should be classified as an extension instead of an implementation
>>requirement, which is what I believe 'core' is supposed to mean.
> OK. Great, so let's compromise. We only keep referring to CSS class
> identifiers in core and move the option to have the styling instructions
> inside of Fresnel to the extended style vocabulary.

Sounds good to me.

> As I said in my last mail, I like your idea of having them on groups and I
> think we should change the spec accordingly.
> But I would like to keep our old terminology because I think:
> - propertyStyle instead of propertyHook makes it clearer that you are
> referring to a styling class. A hook could refer to everything.
> - using propertyStyle fits with both, referring to CSS classes (Core vocab)
> and referring to CSS styling instructions (extended vocab).
> So to sum up, let's use Ryan's proposal but keep the old terminology.
> Meaning:
> - no layout assumptions
> - move the option to include CSS styling instructions into Fresnel to the
> extended style vocab.
> - resourceStyle, propertyStyle ... also on Fresnel:groups
> - keep the term fresne:style instead of Fresnel:transform
> Ryan and Emmanuel: What do you think?

[will reply to Emmanuel's message]

> Coming back to the other pending vocabulary issues, I found this posting:
>>>>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
>>Yes, we should have something like that in Fresnel. Any concrete solution
>>OK with me.
> So, we all agreed that we should have it. What do you think about modelling
> it with Fresnel:value?
> :websiteStyle rdf:type fresnel:Style ;
> fresnel:styleDomain foaf:homepage ;
> fresnel:value fresnel:url .
> (
> y.htm#displayingValues)
> which could mean:
> 1. Display the URL and make it clickable.
> 2. Display the label of the resource if it has one (otherwise URL) and
> make it clickable.
> I would prefer option 2.
> What do you think?

I agree that 2. is the preferable option.

>>>>4. I've already added primaryClasses to the core vocab but I don't
>>>>recall hearing agreement that it's the right thing to do from all.
>>>What was it about? I don't remember this.
>>The issue was to define some classes as primary (like foaf:Person) and have
>>the other as secodnard classes (like vCard:adress), which would give the
>>browser hints on where to start.
>>I'm not totally convinced that we need this. But it is OK with me if Ryan
>>wants to put it in.
> I think this issue is already solved. Anybody disagreeing?

I think we're agreed; it's in the vocabulary now.

> Looks like we manage to mail down the vocab just in time :-)


Ryan Lee       
W3C Research Engineer    +1.617.253.5327
Received on Thu Jun 16 2005 - 02:09:22 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:40:51 EDT