W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1998

Re: possibly frivolous suggestion

From: Sue Sims <sue@css.nu>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:39:36 GMT
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3662ab13.3507887@mailhost.worldnet.att.net>
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:05:47 +0000 (BST), you wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Sue Sims wrote:
>
...re: RANT as proposed HTML tag
>> A "dedicated" tag is not required.

>In that case, would you do away with <ADDRESS> and use <P
>class=address> instead? what about OL, UL? Just one list element and
>select the type of list by class? They are all dedicated tags.

If I want to make presentation suggestions for <ADDRESS>, I'll add a
declaration in my CSS. Ditto with the other structural elements. They
are structural tags, which differentiates them from <RANT>, which
would necessarily be presentational.

>IMHO, CSS should only be *additional* information. 

IMO, CSS should provide presentational suggestions.

>If the CSS is
>required to make sense of the document, then it has been abused. If we
>follow your argument to it's limit, then why not just use <DIV>, with
>suitable classes? All that does is move the structure to a different
>level (that of attributes instead of elements).

Ian, I simply don't follow this quantum logical leap. Where does it
follow that I'm advocating dismissal of structural HTML elements in
favour of using <DIV> with suitable classes? I have been known to use
<P CLASS="rant">...</P>, even in succession, on those occasions when I
become verbose (like this one ;-). I can't feature I'd ever *need* to
obviate that usage in favour of putting the whole into <DIV
CLASS="rant">...</DIV>.

>>... I think Todd posted some at
>> one time, but I can't locate them.

>Todd said 'The Core Style project proposed, quietly, the following
>"named styles" namespace, with a category devoted to
>"functional/presentational"' and then posted the following:

Thanks, Ian. I'm going to save them this time.

Sue
-- 
Sue Sims         mailto:sue@css.nu      
http://css.nu/
Received on Monday, 30 November 1998 09:40:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:56 GMT