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

Re: Behavior, scripts, CSS

From: Matthew Brealey <webmaster@richinstyle.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 18:34:51 +0100
Message-ID: <399044BB.436C@richinstyle.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <glazou_2000@yahoo.fr>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Daniel Glazman wrote:
> --- Matthew Brealey <webmaster@richinstyle.com> a écrit :
> > BeCSS is a proposal to turn style sheets into a script dump.
> Matthew, I wonder how can you seriously write this comment in
> this mailing-list.

Please don't take it personally.

But perhaps I should have listened more carefully when I was taught to
use language precisely:

BeCSS is a proposal to use style sheets as a script dump.

> Even if it is a surprise for you, people in the css+fp wg always
> think about security issues. 

Somewhat, since CSS by definition (as was) doesn't have any security
issues. But I'm not really concerned about security as much as a
fundamental issue with CSS

> Some people even disagree with BECSS !-)

Surely not ;-)

> BECSS does not turn CSS in a script dump. Try to see it as a new
> thing, that uses exactly the CSS grammar and format, and that
> deals only with behaviours. 

Hmm. SVG does that, but that doesn't follow the dump approach.
> BECSS is a proposal that tries to address a problem that dozens and
> dozens of people expressed during the Future of HTML Workshop, some
> years ago : the componentization of the Web. 

Indeed, and two submissions, action style sheets, and HTC do this,
without all the issues that BeCSS has.

> BECSS is *a* possible
> solution, maybe not *the* solution.
> If you think that something can be saved from the current draft, say
> it.

I don't think people object to the reuse of CSS syntax; there is also
consensus, AFAIA, that componentisation is acceptable. 

> In the real world, the best solution is not always the purest. 

Adopting the expedient 'solution' has proved time and again to cost
billions in the long run - witness this in operating systems, in
security problems across the board, and indeed on the web. No-one would
argue that <font> was ever a good thing, but it was certainly expedient
- the cost of this is still being counted now ($millions? $billions). 

I don't think anyone ever regretted doing things properly. And it's the
least one would expect from a standards organisation, if not necessarily
from a commercial company.

Please visit http://RichInStyle.com. Featuring:
MySite: customizable styles.         AlwaysWork style 
Browser bug table covering all CSS2 with links to descriptions.
Lists of > 1000 browser bugs         Websafe Colorizer 
CSS2, CSS1 and HTML4 tutorials.      CSS masterclass 
CSS2 test suite: 5000++ tests and 300+ test pages.
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2000 13:29:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:54 UTC