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

Re: The style attribute, again (was: kelvSYC's Thoughts on the new XHTML Draft)

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:20:29 +0300
Message-ID: <3EBF9F9D.8040409@cc.jyu.fi>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: www-html@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org

Tantek Çelik / 2003-05-09 14:02:

> On 5/8/03 8:05 PM, "kelvSYC" <kelvsyc@shaw.ca> wrote:
> 
>>Here are my thoughts on the new XHTML draft:
>>
>>Style Attribute Module:
>>I thought the style attribute was soundly defeated in an earlier
>>debate...?
> 
> Quite the opposite.  It boiled down to the professional web community
> (individuals and companies) demonstrating real-world use/need-cases, which a
> few theoreticians argued in theory should either not be necessary or not
> exist, thus completely missing the point, no matter how many times the same
> hollow theoretical arguments were reiterated.

IIRC, the last post to www-html list about this issue was by Ian 
Hickson's "We don't need the style attribute" 
<URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Jan/0277.html>. 
Nobody expressed disagreement.

In addition (again IIRC), there wasn't a single real-world example 
where the style attribute would have been needed [1]. All the 
examples given were a direct result of silly authoring methods. If 
XHTML targets to be a yet another presentational markup language, 
then we should include the style attribute, otherwise not.


[1] If you feel otherwise, please provide an URL. Copy pasting 
markup like |<span style="font-weight:bold;">some emphasized 
text</span>| doesn't count as semantic document authoring.

-- 
Mikko
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 09:20:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT