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

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

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:23:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
To: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.10.10002291320090.280-100000@OEMCOMPUTER>
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jelks Cabaniss wrote:

> Frank Boumphrey wrote:
> > 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!
> IMO, that's an excellent reason for keeping inline CSS.  A
> number of us do just that very thing.  Yes, inline CSS can be
> easily abused, but so can lots of things.  Do we deprecate
> everything that *can* be abused?
> I suggested in a previous message that it will be a step forward
> when authoring tools generate
> 	1) inline CSS for font/color/size, etc. (first drafts)
> 	2) a "Move-inline-to-Embedded/LINKed" command (later drafts)

HTML Tidy's clean option works as you describe, first replacing
font and other inline presentation elements by inline style
and then replacing this by style rules in a second pass. The snag
is that Tidy doesn't have a great sense of imagination when it comes
to class names. W3C's Amaya editor helps authors to promote style
in the same way, first applying it inline and inviting you to
promote inline styles into style rules. I don't know about other


-- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
tel/fax: +44 122 578 3011 (or 2521) +44 385 320 444 (mobile)
World Wide Web Consortium (on assignment from HP Labs)
Received on Tuesday, 29 February 2000 08:23:50 UTC

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