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

Re: Direct formatting STYLE attribute

From: David Seibert <seibert@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:23:32 -0500 (EST)
To: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Cc: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, www-style@w3.org, html-wg@oclc.org
Message-Id: <Pine.ULT.3.91.951207151212.26574A-100000@prism.physics.mcgill.ca>
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Scott E. Preece wrote:

> My own opinion is that ... it is wrong-headed to intentionally
> design a language with a goal of forcing people to do something in a way
> that they may not want to do it.  The language should not designed to be
> pedagogy, it should be designed to be an effective tool for writing
> documents.  It should also be teachable, but an unrestricted STYLE
> attribute is in no way less teachable; it is just one more feature that
> a teacher may choose to present or ignore.

Yes, designing a language that people don't like will make them want to 
develop their own variants, so the original language will not survive 
unless people like the way it works.  However, even if you use a style 
only once, is it really much harder to give it a short descriptive name 
that is defined in the header than it is to define it where it is used?  
Many authors may find that they are more productive, or that the quality 
of their work improves, if they first organize the text conceptually and 
then define the necessary styles in the header, instead of trying to 
organize text and define styles at the same time.


Work: seibert@hep.physics.mcgill.ca         Home: 6420 36th Ave.
Physics Department, McGill University       Montreal, PQ, H1T 2Z5 
3600 Univ. St., Mtl., PQ, H3A 2T8, Canada   Canada
(514) 398-6496; FAX: (514) 398-3733         (514) 255-5965
Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 15:24:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:38 UTC