Message-Id: <01BB2191.210EE760@ERIK> From: Erik <email@example.com> To: "'Charles Peyton Taylor'" <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil> Cc: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com> 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 want....new features--not new syntax and new = concepts. However, the concept of CSS is essential...it'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.... <STYLE> <BODY BACKGROUND=3D#000000> <STYLE NAME=3DH2> <FONT SIZE=3D12 FACE=3DTimes,Serif COLOR=3D#FFFFFF> </STYLE> <STYLE NAME=3DH3> <FONT SIZE=3D10 FACE=3DTimes,Serif COLOR=3D#FFFFFF> </STYLE> </STYLE> 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 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: SGML macros using DSSSL expressions -Reply >>> Erik Aronesty <email@example.com> 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.  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 ,=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 firstname.lastname@example.org The opinions and views expressed ## even though we're on our own, are my own and do not reflect ## we are never all alone, Those of the Naval PostGraduate School ## when we are singing, singing. http://www.nps.navy.mil/personal/charles.taylor/  I thought this would be a good place to mention=20 <fn> (footnotes).  you do have to add the link in the <head> of each=20 document, but thats a simple cut-and-paste.