Ryan Lee wrote:
> 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.
Agreed.
>> 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.
True.
> 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.
For core, I am in complete agreement with this. I was really seeing
stylesheetLink as an indication of where to find the referenced classes,
but you're right, it's better to stick to a hard line for core and we
should move this declaration to the extended format vocab. That's much
cleaner.
--
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 FRANCE http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Sat Jul 02 2005 - 07:56:38 EDT