- From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:19:44 +0200
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
> so if you have some strong arguments, let's hear them. of course I have strong arguments, and they have already emerged in the thread. In fact, Shane mentioned some of them first. Deprecating the style attributed makes a few assumptions that are not always true: - authors/developers have control over the whole page they are generating - authors/developers do not need to generate CSS properties dynamically just like any other bit of markup - authors/developers can always use an existing style sheet class/property for their needs - authors/developers do not need to test/prototype/experiment with the look and feel of a page There are plently of real-life cases in which these assumptions are simply wrong. What you call "best practices", really aren't. Luca Mark Birbeck wrote: > Luca, > > How is it a shotgun? > > If very time a standard was updated, it was deemed the result of some > evil power imposing its will, then nothing would ever change! > > So if you have disagreements, voice them. If you don't say *why* you > think @style is useful (other than 'I've got a job to do'...which is > just daft...we all have that), then all you are really saying is that > 'anyone who disagrees with me is some kind of dictator'. > > How can anyone know where to stand on this, if you haven't said what > they should agree with? > > Just for reference, I have no view on this one way or the other, so if > you have some strong arguments, let's hear them. Deprecation is a > reasonable compromise because it allows language designers to use a > feature if they want (they can include the deprecated module in their > language), but draws to their attention that the feature they are > using is not regarded as 'best practice'. > > Regards, > > Mark > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no> wrote: > >>> The consensus today >>> >> Consensus of who? I for one disagree. And so do a load of other developers >> out there, I am sure. >> >> One thing is to advise developers to separate content and presentation. >> Quite another is to use a shotgun to enforce it. >> >> Luca >> >> Tina Holmboe wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 05:05:55PM +0200, Luca Passani wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> We /are/ developers >>>>> >>>>> >>>> sure. You are. I am not denying you are developers. But are you >>>> developers who understand other developers and, above all, the variation >>>> in background, preparation, actual needs that characterize developers' >>>> lives and work? >>>> >>>> >>> Yes. But more to the point we are developers who understand, and work >>> with, the needs of browser developers, content developers, AND end >>> users. >>> >>> That's a standards process in a nutshell. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> are you building standards that will help people do their jobs, dirty >>>> jobs, underpaid jobs, way-too-little-time-to-do-properly-jobs, >>>> need-to-interface-to-a-legacy system-jobs, >>>> need-to-deal-with-crazy-requirements jobs? >>>> >>>> >>> We are building standards - with caveats for the fact that we are, >>> alas, only human - to help users access content, to help developers >>> create good, high quality content, and to aid other developers in >>> creating applications that can do both. >>> >>> Are we creating standards that will, basically, contain everything >>> one, or the other, developer want? Not necessarily, no. Some things >>> will be added, and some removed, that have been shown to be functional >>> or non-functional. >>> I'm afraid it won't necessarily include features added because there >>> is no proper quality process or project manager on a certain job >>> out there. >>> >>> Your requirement for STYLE is one, out of many, requirements that we >>> need to balance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> utopian view of what the world should be. Well, wake up. People need >>>> tools to do well in their job, not tools that try to force them to buy >>>> someone else's view of what their tools should be. >>>> >>>> >>> I'm sorry you feel this way. We are trying to provide the best tools >>> for the job, and the STYLE attribute isn't among them. The consensus >>> today is that it mixes presentation in with the code, and it makes >>> for code which is awfully hard to maintain. >>> >>> And for a developer, hard-to-maintain is anathema. Surely even in your >>> field of work you'd like to be able to go back and update code without >>> finding yourself having to hunt one elusive little STYLE somewhere in >>> one out of a number of templates which muck up the new layout? >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 13:20:31 UTC