Ryan Lee wrote:
> Emmanuel Pietriga wrote:
>
>> Ryan Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Emmanuel Pietriga wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ryan Lee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Ordering / conflict:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Consider formats dealing with children to be a frame outside
>>>>>>> of the box, not interfering with the actual box. E.g., an
>>>>>>> allPropertyFormat on a resource will place its content
>>>>>>> 'outside'
>>>>>>> of every property, and if any property has further specific
>>>>>>> directives from a Format, those contents go inside the
>>>>>>> allPropertyFormat frame. The two do not influence one
>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I like this idea of having one more box. In my mind,
>>>>>> all*Format and group-level declarations are just a convenient way
>>>>>> of declaring formatting properties that apply to many things once
>>>>>> and for all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Without calling it a box, I suppose my proposal is that these
>>>>> things be
>>>>> additive instead of conflicting directives. The order of addition
>>>>> relies on the scope of the directive. And in practice, I think the
>>>>> content* strings will appear on the output as one element, not a
>>>>> set of nested boxes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My concern is not really about boxes. It's about the scope of these
>>>> declarations. I consider them to do the same thing. The only
>>>> difference is that those declared at the group level apply to all
>>>> formats that belong to the group, even if a format by itself does
>>>> not declare them. Group-level declarations are thus just convenience
>>>> methods and should not have a different semantics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Group-level styles are added to any other applicable styles as it is
>>> possible in XHTML to declare multiple classes on one element. This
>>> allows you to e.g. say something about how every rendered resource
>>> should look.
>>>
>>> The same approach seems to make sense to me here as well. I think
>>> they all do do the same thing, in a cumulative and ordered sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you do:
>>
>> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
>> <head>
>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
>> charset=iso-8859-15" />
>> <style>
>> p.foo1:before {
>> content: "foo1 ";
>> }
>>
>> p.foo2:before {
>> content: "foo2 ";
>> }
>> </style>
>> </head>
>>
>> <body>
>> <p class="foo1 foo2">p's content</p>
>> </body>
>> </html>
>>
>> only foo2 appears as content before p's content.
>>
>> Not both foo1 and foo2.
>
>
> I don't fully agree that different scopes should be interpreted as
> conflict and thus require resolution, but I'll go along with it.
What I don't like about the option of "combining" styles declared at the
group level and resource/property/value level is that I don't consider
the semantics to be clear enough, mainly because the "group" per se is
only a logical concept in my mind (i.e., it does not have a
representation in the output rendering, and thus associating formatting
info with it should be considered only from a logical perspective, not
from a rendering perspective).
> I
> suppose someone who wants to do formatting regarldess of type can put it
> in themselves when transforming the Fresnel tree.
>
> Revising the original proposal:
>
> 2. Stricken, unnecessary ("Mint new terms...").
>
>
> 3. Conflict:
>
> - Consider formats as specified in fresnel:Format to take
> precedence over those in fresnel:Group.
>
> - instanceFormatDomain directives take precedence over
> classFormatDomain.
>
> - Only allow one instance of any *Format predicate on a given
> FormatDescription.
>
> I've amended the vocabulary to reflect any changes. It should be frozen
> at this point; I'll add these changes to the manual a bit later.
Ok.
--
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 Mon Jul 18 2005 - 07:33:56 EDT