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

Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS)

From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 22:52:10 -0500
Message-ID: <024c01bf7db1$6069e7e0$aab2aec7@prioritynetworks.net>
To: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>, "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
<murray>The two representatives in the HTML
WG from the HTML Writer's Guild (representing over 110,000 web
authors worldwide) have been pretty strong advocates of the decision
made by the HTML WG to deprecate the 'style' attribute into the
Legacy module.</murray>

The fact is the inline style module is there to use in the legacy, _if you
want to use it_. However I am a big believer in seperating style and
content, and i believe that the inline style module needs to be deprecated,
other wise we will be back in the situation where all the styling
information is buried in the XHTML page.

I confess that during the development stages of a document i make great use
of inline styling, but when I have finished, I move it all out to the place
where IMO it needs to be, namely a style sheet!

Murray makes a very good point that by deprecating it all we are saying is
if you are going to use it, use XHTML 1.* and not XHTML 2+.

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS)


> Chris Wilson wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't like your implication, in jest or not.  There have been a wide
> > variety of people in this discussion saying that the loss of the inline
> > STYLE attribute is a mistake; only one of them has been from Microsoft.
> [...]
> > I don't hear a clear consensus that the inline STYLE attribute is a
> > legacy the web community wishes delete.
>
> You know, most everyone I've heard from is either a past or current
> member of the CSS working group or a Microsoft employee. And the
> most recent message was you, yet another Microsoft employee, not
> simply member of the 'web community'. Looking back over the archives,
> any lack of consensus you're trying to establish seems to be only
> the noise you guys are making. The two representatives in the HTML
> WG from the HTML Writer's Guild (representing over 110,000 web
> authors worldwide) have been pretty strong advocates of the decision
> made by the HTML WG to deprecate the 'style' attribute into the
> Legacy module.
>
> I guess I'm just a little bit tired hearing representatives of the
> world's most powerful software company claiming to represent the
> will of the 'web community', not that I doubt for a minute you guys
> could find a whole bunch of people to suddenly flood this list with
> support for your position. I think I remember James Salsman
> performing similar feats. Argument by attrition, I think it's
> referred to in high school debate.
>
> > If your goal is to get away from stylistic associations in
> > (X)HTML documents, why do you even allow <STYLE> elements
> > and <LINK>1 stylesheets?
>
> Conflating the two may serve your argument, but I've never stated that
> as a goal, nor is it one. I have no problem with external or embedded
> stylesheets, just the style attribute. I like CSS stylesheets just fine
> and use them on my own web pages. I'd love it if they were implemented
> more consistently (the default CSS2 stylesheet for HTML looks *horrid*
> in Netscape), but I won't harp on the designers for that problem.
>
> Murray
>
>
...........................................................................
> Murray Altheim, SGML Grease Monkey
<mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
> XML Technology Center
> Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025
>
>    the honey bee is sad and cross and wicked as a weasel
>    and when she perches on you boss she leaves a little measle -- archy
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 22:34:49 GMT

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