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

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

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 20:25:19 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10002222011590.1475-100000@mail.q2.net>


On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Jelks Cabaniss wrote:
> Arjun Ray wrote:
> 
> "Tagsoup-ish" in that there's markup involved for the purpose of
> suggesting presentation, yes.

Well, that wasn't what I was trying to imply, either.  Tagsoupish is
where not only don't you realize what you need until you come to it,
but also at that point you have to *invent* something.  IOW, strictly
stream-of-consciousness composition, no such thing as sticking to a
plan, much less preparing the groundwork for a plan beforehand.

> But I think there's a big difference between using "tags" and
> using an attribute designed for that purpose.

Tag soup applies to attributes too:)

> On the World Wide Web, there are likely always going to be a large
> number of constituents whose only concern is presentation, not
> semantics.

I'm not sure why someone interested in presentation only always has to
be unprepared.  "Gee, I guess I need a FOO... what? I gotta make up a
*new* class?  what a drag..." Well, *why* does he need a new class?
Either his initial plan (such as a good set of *predefined* classes)
is no good, or it doesn't exist, or he's in the habit of changing
plans on the spot all the time, so he never really bothers with plans
anyway.

The STYLE attribute isn't the simple case.  It's the lazy case.

> And even for those who *do* know what semantics is about, the
> style attribute can come in handy.  As Sue Sims said in an earlier
> message:
> 
>     Speaking up: I think it is very important to keep the simplicity.
>     Stretch extensibility to the max if you must, but don't *make* me go
>     there with you.
> 
>     On the rare occasion I need to override a rule from my external CSS, I
>     really don't want to try to remember (or even look up) the syntax for
>     the 'next to the last <a> in the 42nd <p> which is a descendent of the
>     3rd nested <div>'. Let me <span> the silly thing and be done with
>     it...please?

I'm not sure why SPANning it means having to STYLE it rather than
CLASS it.  Sue?


Arjun
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 19:58:04 GMT

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