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

Re: Direct formatting STYLE attribute

From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 16:09:56 -0600
Message-Id: <199512072209.QAA28943@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Cc: www-style@w3.org, html-wg@oclc.org
   From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>

|   Most people are not taught HTML.  They "pick it up on the Web".  If they get
|   confused, they ask someone or look it up in a book.

Yes, and I assume that once stylesheets are supported, the examples they
see will begin to have common, standard stylesheet references in them
and will use class= attributes.

|   The direct style attribute blurs the line between style sheets and HTML and
|   makes it more difficult to learn one without the other.

Maybe, but I would expect direct styling to be used so infrequently that
the novice would be unlikely to be confused.

|							  Within weeks of the
|   release of the stylesheet enhanced Netscape, wg-html will be swamped with
|   requests for more "HTML style sheet tags."  "I wish HTML supported
|   florescent hyphenation"


|   If it were really the case that "one more feature" would not make a language
|   harder to learn, then every language could have every feature.  Those of us
|   (and this may well include you, Scott) who have programmed in languages that
|   have every feature know that this is _not_ the case.  Extra features do make
|   a language harder to learn, especially if they are features that blur the
|   difference between components of the system.

Extra features *can* make it harder to use a language.  I think they
*must* make it harder to use a language like a native, but not every
language is structured in a way that makes learning a subset

|   Further, if those features blatantly overlap the abilities of another part
|   of the system, most people will think: "I must not understand this system.
|   Surely there is some difference between these two features."

So, how do you feel about naked lambdas in LISP (a language which does a
good job of not forcing you to name things unless they need names)?
Do you think LISP would be a "better" language if every function had to
be created with defun?


scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 17:10:29 UTC

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