Re: SGML macros using DSSSL expressions -Reply

Erik (
Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:06:30 +0100

Message-Id: <01BB2191.210EE760@ERIK>
From: Erik <>
To: "'Charles Peyton Taylor'" <>
Cc: "''" <>
Subject: RE: SGML macros using DSSSL expressions -Reply
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:06:30 +0100

CSS is largely uniteligble.  It's C-like syntax is confusing to anyone =
who is unfamaialr with C.  The success of the web was and still is =
hinged on simplicity.

I know for a fact that most casual HTML authors I talk to are ignoring =
Java and CSS...they will continue to convert to the simpler =
Microsoft/Netscape methodology of page-layout markup tags and embedded =
scripting. =20
This is what the people features--not new syntax and new =

However, the concept of CSS is's just the goofy =
implementation that concerns me as a viable extension to the web.

why not just use an INSERT tag to include a style definition....


or something equally silly

Also...about Microsoft and Netscape...

HTML authors are most often NOT skilled coders.  In fact, most of them =
can't figure out how to join a mailing list.

These companies are not "showing off", they are responging to demand in =
a competitive marketplace for features without complexity. =20

W3's ideas will be left as a curious anachronism if they ignore the =
demands of the users.

Microsoft will own the web unless someone else plays their game better =
than they do.

From: 	Charles Peyton Taylor
Sent: 	Thursday, February 29, 1996 3:23 AM
Subject: 	Re: SGML macros using DSSSL expressions -Reply

>>> Erik Aronesty <> 02/24/96 11:14pm >>>
<snipped text about complexity in HTML>
>microsofts use of font face and size...along=20
>with other simple tags are enough for
>95% of the people.  We should focus on what=20
>the people and the industries want.

I could agree with that if you only said "the=20
industries" and if you limit that to only those
companies who make web software. =20

I've wanted CSS style sheets for a while now,=20
and I haven't seen anything by the larger browser
manufacturers promising to implement them now
or when they are finalized.  Oh, <banner> and=20
<FIG>, too. [1]

Really, if a browser can do frames, why can't a=20
browser can do <banner>?  If a browser can do=20
<table> and <img>, a browser should be able to=20
do <fig>.  Style sheets might take a little more=20
processing, but hell, if you have <font> ...

I really believe the major browser companies=20
(you know who I mean) add tags simply so that=20
they can shout "hey, look what *WE* invented"=20
and that they don't really care about implementing=20
that which they didn't invent (unless the market=20
forces them towards something like HTML 2.0 .)

>maybe i'm mad...but the CSS syntax is bad enough. =20

I didn't find it so bad, except I kept confusing the=20
old format with the new format.  The great thing about=20
CSS (when used with a working browser) is that you only=20
have to do everything *ONCE* for *ALL* your documents [2],=20
and if you want to change things, you only need one line.

C  h a r l e s    P e y t o n   T a y l o r       =20
The opinions and views expressed       ##  even though we're on our
are my own and do not reflect          ##        we are never all
Those of the Naval PostGraduate School ##  when we are singing,

[1]  I thought this would be a good place to mention=20
<fn> (footnotes).
[2]  you do have to add the link in the <head> of each=20
document, but thats a simple cut-and-paste.