RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

Hi all,

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.  First, let me say that I
am not one to use the style attribute.  But from what I have read, a valid
example might be something like this:

Company ABC has some data to share with Company XYZ, for example, a news
article that will be included on a web page.  A simplified version of this
data might look something like this:

<div>
   <div class="articletitle">Why XHTML 2.0 is Considered Harmful</div>
   <div id="whyxhtmlisharmful">Blah blah blah...</div>
</div>

Company ABC is concerned that the data must be presented the way that they
intended it to be, but they don't have access to the <head> of Company XYZ's
web page.  So how then does Company XYZ no how to "style" the data it is
given?

In addition, what if Company XYZ had it's own CSS class definition for
"articletitle" which rendered data much differently than ABC's desired
presentation?

Is this the type of example you were looking for?

Regards,
Peter Foti



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Mikko Rantalainen
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:12 PM
> To: Tantek Çelik
> Cc: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful
> 
> 
> 
> Tantek Çelik wrote:
> > On 1/15/03 9:00 AM, "Jonas Jørgensen" <jonasj@jonasj.dk> wrote:
> >>Tantek Çelik wrote:
> >>>I think this is in general the problem with the discussion 
> of the 'style'
> >>>attribute.  On one side there are semantic purists that 
> don't understand
> >>>what the problem is and therefore claim there is no 
> problem, and on the
> >>>other side there are _experienced_ folks that have seen 
> numerous real world
> >>>situations where the style attribute is not only useful, 
> but essential.
> >>>
> >>>These real world situations have been listed in threads in 
> this list, but
> >>>always ignored or belittled.
> >>
> >>Name one. Just one.
> > 
> > Please research the archives of www-html and www-style.  
> Many others have
> > provided many examples, and some (like Daniel Glazman, and 
> Chris Mannall)
> > continue to do so.
> 
> Hey, if majority here thinks that style attribute should go 
> away then it 
> should be pretty clear that asking us to find reasons to keep 
> it ourself 
> isn't going to help. I understand that your time might be 
> taken by more 
> important stuff, but if you cannot provide an even one valid example 
> (write a description of situation to the list or provide an URL) to 
> defend style attribute, then the only reasonable decision is 
> to remove it.
> 
> Couldn't it be that you've seen reasons to keep style attribute in 
> history and those reasons sounded like valid at that time; you guess 
> that those reasons are still valid and just tell us to seek around 
> without any specific pointers.
> 
> I still repeat that I'm not against keeping the style 
> attribute per se, 
> but I'm against keeping it without a good reason. And I haven't seen 
> such a reason yet.
> 
> The style attribute is guilty and should be removed, unless proven 
> innocent. :)
> 
> 
> Research report (only a few latest posts)
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Glazman said that id + CSS had some issue with namespaces. No further 
> explanation provided. Copy and paste was another issue but I already 
> addressed that one.
> 
> Mannal mentioned the issue between the DOM interaction and style 
> attribute. I already replied to that too.
> 
> -- 
> Mikko
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 13:53:10 UTC