Re: Reading through vocabulary - 1

From: Ryan Lee <>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:32:33 -0400

Emmanuel Pietriga wrote:
> Ryan Lee wrote:
>> I did a quick skim through the latest repository version of the
>> vocabulary, skipping details for now knowing Emmanuel is working on
>> some revisions.
>> 1. :myGroup fresnel:stylesheetLink <http://...> .
>> seems like it should be an optional hint. I don't think I'll be
>> writing code for Longwell to pick up externally referenced CSS
>> stylesheets. In keeping with the 'if I say it, do it' razor for core,
>> I think this should be moved to extended.
> I understand your point of view. But in that case, what is the point of
> having styling hooks in core? Syling hooks are CSS class names that
> reference CSS rules in the external stylesheet(s) provided by the
> associated group.

My suggestion to move this to extended is the same as moving the ability
to directly include CSS instructions to extended. I wouldn't have said
that the class names we allow are grounded in a specific stylesheet,
more that a stylesheet can make use of those names.

> And from what I undertand of styling hooks, you wouldn't have to
> actually retrieve the stylesheet and process it (I think). Wouldn't it
> be sufficient to reference the stylesheet in the XHTML output and have
> the class names "forwarded" to elements in the same XHTML result tree?

As Chris observed a bit later, this is the exact same problem as before,
and I'm sorry I missed addressing this earlier, because it seems like we
didn't really deal with the whole issue if this term still exists in core.

If stylesheetLink is declarative, then I should always include your CSS
when I render using your definitions. Do we agree that that's the
expected behavior? If so, I don't agree that it should be a core
requirement. Not everybody is going to trust that your CSS is
consistent with their own overall styling, and so it should be optional
to include it.

If not, then please clarify - what exactly is a stylesheetLink telling
me? How can I be compliant with core requirements without following
that declaration's intent? Can I call it an alternate stylsheet (<link
rel="alternate stylesheet" href="http://your.css/css" />)?

I'm taking a rather harder line on this point because I think core
declarations should be strict - do it if I say to do it, don't if I
don't - and should all be implemented.

Ryan Lee       
W3C Research Engineer    +1.617.253.5327
Received on Fri Jul 01 2005 - 15:30:14 EDT

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