W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: About dropping the style attribute

From: gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:09:11 -0300
Message-ID: <8320a9390706270609u6777eabal69d4274c92e1977d@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

On 6/27/07, Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com> wrote:
>
> gonchuki wrote:
>
> > As for unique formatting, that's something we already do via #id,
>
> Assuming that an exemplary content rich site probably allows images from 100 pixel minimum height/width to maximum 300 pixel height/width, you'd recommend to create 80,199 IDs? Or, probably discovering that there might be two images of the same size on a page, 201 classes for assigning the individual width, and additional 201 classes for the height (402 image measurement related classes)?
> I'm pretty sure that /nobody/ here wants to do that, even when I'm exaggerating to illustrate that problem.
>

As for your given example, i can only imagine a page that is based on
wrong foundations, any given photo album/image gallery doesn't have
more than 25 images per page or so, and even then they are always
presented with consistent height as not to break the vertical flow of
the page.
But, if i get your point, you are maybe trying to illustrate the issue
with forums and related sites given on a previous message, but *that*
particular situation is where i see a good use-case for scoped
stylesheets.


> > and given the greater weight given to the rule it (sic) outweights
> > whatever is set, giving the desired 'unique formatting'.
>
> I probably misunderstand you, but "style" is more specific than any selector with no matter how many IDs [1] (assuming the same importance).
>

may be i didn't explain myself correctly, what i was explaining is a
case where the style attribute was already removed from spec, implying
that an #id is what should be used to give unique formatting to an
element.

> > IMHO, HTML5 should be the final step in educating authors and
> > authoring tools alike to separate content from presentation, several
> > tags and attibutes are being dropped in this spec, and dropping the
> > style attribute is the last signal to say "presentation doesn't belong
> > here".
>
> Presumably, XHTML 2 will do a better job in that, and even the current draft still includes the "style" attribute [2].
>
> Again, "style" has its qualification, and we're better off educating its responsible use.
>
if it's decided that style sttribute remains in the spec, then
educating responsible use is our best option.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 13:09:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT