Last year, you were all among the people kind enough
to comment on the last call of our specification “Content Selection for
Device Independence”. We responded to all comments on the public
mailing list for the document, which is archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/.
Some we accepted, some we declined.
In a number of cases, we did not hear back from you
after we responded to your comments. Given the time that has elapsed since our
responses were sent, we have assumed that a lack of reply means that you have
accepted our response.
Based on the feedback that we received from you, and
from others, we made significant changes to the specification. In addition, we
split the formal part of the specification into two parts, and have started
work on a Primer. It was clear from a number of comments that we had not
adequately explained how to use the specification. Some people felt that we
were deliberately violating the principle of separation of concerns, which was
certainly not our intent.
Because of these and other changes, we have re-issued
the last call for this specification. The publications for the second last call
Content Selection for Device Independence
> In a number of cases, we did not hear back from you after we responded
> to your comments. Given the time that has elapsed since our responses
> were sent, we have assumed that a lack of reply means that you have
> accepted our response.
Given the time that has elapsed, I'm afraid I'm no longer sure what I
said. However, looking at the latest drafts I think my original concerns
still stand. Perhaps the primer will clear this up, but this seems to be
an effort to create an embedded stylesheet language. It mixes content
with presentation in direct contravention to the goals of the Web, HTML,
and XML going back to their earliest days.