W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2000

Behavior, scripts, CSS

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:38:39 -0400
Message-Id: <200008032235.SAA11785@hesketh.net>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
At 02:36 PM 8/3/00 -0400, Jelks Cabaniss wrote:
>This is another good reason why the 'E' of BECSS should be dropped.  Do
>"behaviors" in CSS syntax if you will, but as a *separate* entity.  Script
does
>not belong inside CSS, no matter how convenient in might be to script
kiddies or
>mass-market UA vendors wishing to avoid MIME issues.

I seem to be the only here who feels this way, but I think this is putting
our heads in the sand.  There's an enormous amount of work to be done,
especially with XML vocabularies (and XHTML modules containing those) that
requires more than formatting but less than custom application development.

ActiveX controls let you format your hard drive from any script - this
isn't a hazard peculiar to including scripts in CSS.  If the script's not
in a sandbox, of course there are potential disasters lurking.  That's the
nature of programming, period.

I'm not very happy with the current BECSS draft - section 3 should be
gutted, since too many upcoming CSS application have nothing to do with HTML.

Styles already define behavior, and already provide a set of tools for
attaching that behavior to document structures.  I don't think adding
scripting to the behavioral mix is so awful.  In fact, I think it'll be
necessary if CSS has any interested in supporting upcoming XML work,
notably XLink.  I really _don't_ want to have to turn to XSLT for that work.

Script kiddies?  Maybe.  More realistically, XML developers trying to get
real work done.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2000 18:36:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:05 GMT