W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2008

Re: XHTML Basic 1.1 and setting input field to numeric mode

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:37:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4868A942.7050803@eunet.no>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> I was talking about your generic claim that because something has uses 
> it must not be deprecated. bgcolor support was also useful when HTML 
> 4.01 was released, that doesn't mean they were wrong for /that/ reason 
> to deprecate it in favour of stylesheets.
> Features may have use-cases a specification is intended to meet, but 
> still be deprecated because there are /or/ will be in the future 
> better ways to fulfill those use-cases.
better ways in theory. Not in practice.

>> I presented examples of legitimate uses of @style to which you 
>> responded with "hacks" (manipulate the dom,
>> repeat the code to create the CSS definition elsewhere, and so on).
> * Manipulating the DOM is not a hack.
it is, if presented as an alternative to <div style="color:red">Red 

> * Adding a style attribute /is/ manipulating the DOM.
sure, for some definitions of manipulating the DOM
> * Repeating code is to be avoided, but I'd hardly call it a "hack" 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_%28technology%29).
What is a hack to me, isn't a hack to you and the other way around, 
probably. Anyway, I'll rest my case: forcing someone to repeat code 
means incentivizing hacky coding practices.

> * My suggestion did not involve any repetition of code. Your imagined 
> implementation did, but I can't understand why. Insisting that I 
> proposed this, in direct contradiction of the email you're replying 
> to, is really not helpful.
well, yeah, I imagined implementation. I have this brain damage where I 
am thinking ahead of how things will work in practice.

> * I've regularly seen the style attribute used to apply the same style 
> in multiple places, either for rapid prototyping or to style included 
> DOM. That's an example of code repetition that can be avoided by using 
> "link" or "style" elements rather than "style" attribute.
I think we are in a loop here. IMO it should be up to the coder to 
understand when the time to 'refactor' their markup has come, and 
multiple @style uses would be better turned into a reusable class. 
Enforcing this with the grammar (even though just deprecating) is IMO wrong!

Anyway, the world has lived happily without W3C recommendations all of 
this time, and can keep doing it for a long time. My comments are 
directed at making XHTML (basic, in my case) less detached from reality.
If detached from reality is what you like, the path is clear.

Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 09:37:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:20 UTC