W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Headline: Styles pondering desertion to Content!

From: Wingnut <wingnut@winternet.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 08:37:19 -0600
Message-ID: <4023A69F.5030006@winternet.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> 
> Wingnut wrote:
> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Feb/0001.html

>>
>> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> <snip/>
>>
  >
>   True, but this is not the www-style list, it's www-html, so CSS 
> changes shouldn't be discussed here anyway.
> 

Neither should one's opinion of on/off topicness.


>>  In most folks' logic, border is "an adornment" that could be labeled 
>> as content OR presentational.  And using that same logic, an 
>> oval/circular border deserves to be right next to the square border.  
>> And so does underline and overline (partial borders).  Then, so does 
>> triangle border,...
> 
> 
>   No,  borders, or underlines, etc. are presentational, but what they 
> are representing /may/ be semantic.  For example, when a wiggly, red 
> underline is drawn underneath a word, it usually indicates incorrect 
> spelling.  The wiggly red underline is the presentation, but the 
> indication of a misspelt word is the semantics.  The presentation could 
> infact be anything, so long as the reader understood that presentation 
> correctly.  It is only by convention that a wiggly red underline is used.

Arrows have always meant one thing and they are not going to change 
meaning just because a markup language can't cut the mustard to mark it 
up.  What you say is likely true, but it doesn't solve my (the world's) 
problem of trying to get an aimable arrow onto the screen without having 
to go draw a gif to accomplish it.  And, it sure as heck doesn't solve 
the lack of z-rotation on box models, or lack of "build your own 
polygonal shape" box models.  I'm sure I'm making a BUNCH of mistakes in 
my presentation... but what about solving the problem?  No matter how 
screwed-up Wingy is with his terminology, presentational means, and 
thought regimentation, HOW DO "WE" SOLVE THIS DILEMMA?  Stay on subject. 
  I need z-rotational dohickies.  How do I get it?  Is it pics or a 
special displayer, and that's the end of that further discussion?

> 
>   You need to stop thinking and talking about the types of shapes and 
> lines that are being drawn, and think about what these shapes and lines 
> represent or indicate.  That way, you may come up with some useful, 
> non-presentational elements for XHTML, or maybe some other XML based 
> language.

The shapes were created long ago, by teachers.  What they represent was 
established long ago, by teachers.  Beyond the teachers, to try to 
figure out what every "symbol" means to every person in every group of 
symbol users... is ridiculous.  I need a dynamic "symbol maker" in the 
browsers and in the specs.  One that can make symbols for all sorts of 
symbol users, not just arrow and angled-text users like the teachers. 
The "library of symbols and dohickie formulas" for the dynamic widget 
maker built into the browser... could have a thousand "formulas" in it 
for a thousand symbols... for a thousand different uses.  I cannot stop 
thinking about the types of shapes yet... until I hear if the W3C is 
ever going to allow z-rotation of box models and pics.  Only THEN, will 
I stop thinking and talking about types of shapes as per your request.

> 
> CYA
> ...Lachy!
> 
Thanks again, L!  Wingy
Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 09:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:04 UTC