W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?)

From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:29:50 -0500
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NBBBICMNIPCICMKJECCBGEFDDGAA.jelks@jelks.nu>
Murray Altheim wrote:

> > So if you include the Stylesheet Module (which anyone wanting to
> > use CSS would do), don't you have inline styling capability in
> > XHTML 1.1.  What am I missing?
>
> You're talking about two products. There is a collection of modules
> described in the modularization draft that includes a Legacy module.
> This module includes all the features included in HTML 4.0's three
> DTDs, <font> et al. The Legacy module is only included to allow the
> creation of a markup language for legacy usage.

Thanks for the clarification.

> XHTML 1.1 is a markup language built out of a set of those modules,
> but does not include legacy features. No frames, no <font>, no style
> attribute.

Inline and embedded styling have problems, but to put them in the legacy bucket
with FONT and frames -- at least at this point in time -- is, IMO, a stretch.
Especially since "XML Packaging" doesn't even show up as a blip on the radar
screen.  Until that exists (*if* it ever exists),  documents should be able to
be shipped with rendering suggestions *in the instance*.

The problem, as we all know, is a tendency toward the "div + span + inline
styling = the new RTF" paradigm -- only DIVs, SPANs; no semantics.  Granted,
that's an abuse.  But even as abused it's light years ahead of FONT, CENTER, and
tag soup.

The modularization work is fantastic.  I'd hate to see it ignored by the tool
vendors *and* the developers because inline/embedded styling was sacrificed
prematurely on the altar of pure separation of content and presentation.

I agree with your goal.  But I find it unrealistic -- and foolish -- to send
inline or embedded CSS to the legacy bin at this time.  *At this time*.

> If you want to build a DTD using the Legacy module, you're welcome to
> do so. The HTML WG position is that we are trying to be good web citizens,
> and 1.1 therefore removes deprecated features and those we feel are
> counter to i18n, WAI, and other interoperability goals.

Two questions:

	1) Was there consensus in the HTML WG on this?

	2) Has the issue been "escalated"?



/Jelks
Received on Sunday, 20 February 2000 21:32:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT