W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1999

Re: New Working Draft : BECSS

From: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@der.edfgdf.fr>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:53:51 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199911030953.KAA04041@cli51ak.der.edf.fr>
To: www-style@w3.org
Cc: howcome@opera.com

> property-value pairs, it is just that the values this time are in a
> language that can be executed. (Typically, ECMAScript.)

And that's what frigtens our dear Haakon... The Web is full of docume
nts containing scripts that can be executed - including by Opera - but
it does not turn html into a programming language. So I don't really
see, even we discussed that a lot of times, what could potentially
make CSS a programming language here.

> CSS itself is still not a programming language.

I totally agree with that.


> Executable code already appears in HTML. Moving it to CSS adds no
> security problems that are not present already, but makes the life of
> web authors significantly simpler.

ditto.

> What does anyone gain by forcing the 
> 
>    user-select: text;
> 
> ...and
> 
>    onBlur: "validateData()";
> 
> ...to be in different files?

Complexity for web authors.

I think we are running into a really religious war. Some of us, with a
very practical view of the web, see benefits in a becss
mechanism. Some others, with a very ideal and pure view of the web,
see dangers. Our actual arguments are not going to convince Haakon and
Haakon's counter-arguments seem irrelevant to me.

[ nothing personal, Haakon... I just believe you are completely wrong ]

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 1999 04:54:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:01 GMT