W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 1995

Re: draft-ietf-html-style-00.txt

From: Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:35:30 -0800
Message-Id: <v02120d05acebc69b9a7d@[205.149.180.135]>
To: David Seibert <seibert@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>, Glenn Adams <glenn@stonehand.com>
Cc: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>, www-style@w3.org
At 4:15p 12/06/95, David Seibert wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>>     Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 19:56:00 +0100
>>     From: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
>>
>>        2. No style properties in attributes (STYLE="...")
>>
>>     The argument for (2) is that it leads to bad design. It may also be a
>>     little bit less efficient for future sophisticated browsers. But some
>>     people want this facility, so I guess we just have to accept this in
>>     HTML.
>>
>> It seems to me that IETF WGs work on a consensus basis.  I don't believe
>> there is a consensus on a STYLE attribute.  Some people oppose it quite
>> strongly.  Therefore, it should be removed.  "Some people want this" doesn't
>> cut it!
>
>I agree with Glenn.  Since the goal is to have HTML 3.0 be a "final"
>version, it makes sense to include facilities for any type-setting
>effect, no matter how few people want it.  Thus, if allowing style
>properties in attributes was necessary to achieve some effect, then it
>would make sense to allow this no matter how many people didn't like it.
>However, this is not a necessity but only a convenience, since the same
>effect can also be obtained by pre-declaring elements of different
>classes, so there is no strong argument for allowing it.


I do all my web authoring by hand in a drag&drop text editor, using stuff
like <font size=+2><B><I>xxx</I></B></font>. I would GLADLY switch to
something like <SPAN STYLE="subhead2">xxx</SPAN> with "subhead2" previously
defined. For those places where direct formatting is needed, we already
have <B>, <I>, <STRONG>, and <EM>. Anything more complex than that is best
defined as a style (class, whatever) anyway.

I definitely want the ability to have one <H2> look one way and another
<H2> look another way in the same document.

I definitely do NOT want a <H2 STYLE="font: Helvetica"> type of tag.

Why use STYLE as the name of the attribute instead of CLASS? Because it
matches the <STYLE> element in the HEAD. It makes no sense to use CLASS
instead, unless you have <CLASS> in the HEAD. In a word: Consistency.

(Should I be telling html-wg this? I don't know who I'm preaching to here!;)

-Walter

__________________________________________________________________________
    Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>       | Excel | FoxPro | AppleScript |
          Mountain View, CA              |--------- programmer ---------|
 http://www.natural-innovations.com/     |   Macintosh    |   Windows   |
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 1995 17:37:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:43 GMT