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

(unknown charset) Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?)

From: (unknown charset) Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 04:05:16 -0500 (EST)
To: (unknown charset) www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002210345050.1475-100000@mail.q2.net>

On Sun, 20 Feb 2000, Tantek [ISO-8859-1] Çelik wrote:

> >From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@jelks.nu>
> > The modularization work is fantastic.  

Am I the only one who remembers that Murray Altheim first proposed
modularization some time back in '95?  This has been a looooong time
in the making, folks.  Too long.

> > 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.

Right now, my prediction is that m12n, being of no use to tag-soupers,
is better suited to entirely new uses than "evolutions" of what tool
vendors and developers think is wanted.  That is, m12n isn't so much
about acquiring converts to The One True Way as it's about creating
new possibilities. 

> separation of content and presentation (and script and transform
> etc. etc.) is *good* thing to *enable* and *encourage*, but not to
> *enforce*.  premature deprecation will only offend and insult
> those authors and implementors who have understand the proper time
> to use linked style sheets vs. inline style sheets vs. inline
> styles.

I like a good rant as much as the next guy, but without some handle on
what this "proper time" thingy is, I have no idea what you mean.  Does
it have something to do with "premature deprecation", as in "It's not
the proper time because it's premature, by which I mean that it's
premature because it's not the proper time"?  Actually, if the history
of HTML is any guide, I'd say *mature* deprecation is the Big Mystery.

> and you're right about the ignoring part.  any technology or
> specification which fails to be useful to the target customer
> *deserves* to be ignored.
> spec writers should learn to *listen* to the customer or else
> suffer the same fate of so many previous technologies/specs which
> were too "high-minded".

Target customer?  Hmmm.

> and speaking of listening, how many _professional web
> authors/designers_ have posted to this list asking to *keep* the
> STYLE attribute?  i've seen several.
> how many have asked for it to be removed / relegated to legacy
> because it never should have existed in the first place?  don't
> hold your breath.

Ah, the target customer!

No wonder bloated trailing edge crippleware is so popular.

Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 03:39:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:53 UTC