W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Font Style Elements

From: Wingnut <wingnut@winternet.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:38:03 -0600
Message-ID: <3E676B5B.5000108@winternet.com>
To: www-html@w3.org


Wingnut wrote:
>>  Ok, I am curious about The Golden Mean.  I open my Javascript node
>> harvestor search engine, and I send it off to get the 10 chunks of html, 
> 

David Woolley wrote:
> This seems to me to be a user agent, not a document (although one of
> the problems with real world HTML is that people insist on writing
> custom user agents in "DHTML", making users' lives difficult as they
> have to learn a different user agent for each site.

Wingnut wrote more... as we all expected...

Thanks for your comments, DW!  There are still a few of us "educate 
everyone and don't you dare bill them" kind of folks out here.  We will 
be writing powerful data pullers and handing them out freely.  Exclusive 
user agent makers... are almost always free marketeers, harvesting 
money.  I am not a member of the free marketeers, and I only use their 
monetary notes because no others are accepted in USA supply depots.  I 
am a member of KFF. (Knowledge for free) :)  This is not topic drift, as 
transclusion (and many other W3C endeavors) is highly affected by free 
marketeers and folks who keep legal rigidity in their copyrighted 
content.  Again, let it be known that their is a group of 
non-commercial, non-acadamia, plain folk who want style transclusion 
considerations in their styling systems.


> As a document, I think the copyright issues would severely limit the
> applicability of this idea.  (Not necessarily a statement of the law,
> but rather what most commercial content providers would want it to be.)


I am a non-commercial content provider, and I have a feeling there are 
many of us.  Do we care about what non-commercial content providers want?

Sure, we might all be crammed aboard the "good clean free knowledge web 
ring" in the end... but we'll be there just the same.  Most children 
seeking ad-free, bias-free, cost-free knowledge will be there too. 
Transclusion isn't going to leave.  Its waiting patiently for its time 
in the lime light.  Handing-around chunks of DOM tree will become no 
more uncommon than handing-around text files.  Search the web for the 
word 'transclusion'.  Its not exactly a hidden or new theory.  I'll be 
here in some thread, year after year, bugging folks about 
transclusion... until it gets its due chance.


> If the grabbed code were well written,


A good content provider ALWAYS writes nodes that are ready for 
transcluding.  For me, right now, that would be nodes with embeded style 
attributes.


> it would be easier to read if
> presented in a consistent style.  If it were written in typical 
> presentational style, it would be almost certain that the logical
> section of the article didn't correspond to the element with the ID
> attribute used for the fragment reference.
> 

I'm not sure I understand that.  Either the fragment target is the 
correct one to the article, or it isn't.  If the fragment-targetted 
element is beneath (doesn't include) the bordered DIV that the author 
prefers to have wrapping the article... then the anchor point isn't the 
correct one for honoring author preferences, and that's that.  Correct 
the anchor point, either by re-targetting the node harvestor, or talking 
with the author.

Ok, I got a bit evangelistic here.  Transclusion of nodes is a wonderful 
thing... it really is, and I think we should strive to accomplish it, 
even if it means everyone can't bill everyone for everything anymore.  I 
believe it was the ugly talk of trans-copyright and micro-pay that 
wobbled the Transcluders-R-Us army in round 1.  It won't happen again. :)

Wingnut
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2003 10:44:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT