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

RE: CSS-Tranformation mechanism and modularizing CSS

From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:28:52 -0400
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NBBBICMNIPCICMKJECCBGEFFCPAA.jelks@jelks.nu>
Daniel Glazman wrote:

> 1. using colloquial english like "to muck up" makes your point
> difficult to understand w/o a dictionnary for non-english locutors. I
> had to use a dictionnary.

Sorry.[1]  But you got me back -- I couldn't find "locutor"[2] even in the
dictionary...

> 2. BECSS do not add scripting facilities to CSS itself ...

According to the section on script blocks[3] it does:

	  @script {
	    var count = 0;
	    function checkCount() {
	      if (document.getElementsById("radio").value == "add") {
	        count++;
	      }
	      else {
	        count--;
	      }
	    }
	  }

Do we really want to formally allow this kind of stuff inside a CSS
stylesheet???  I know I'm not the only one having a hard time buying into this.
A Javascript-capable web developer I was speaking with the other day put it this
way: "Aren't there enough important issues to keep them busy so they don't have
to obfuscate style with script just to preverve our job security?"

:)

/Jelks


[1] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?muck%20up

[2] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?locutor

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/becss#scriptblock
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 01:30:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:00 GMT