W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2002

Re: CSS 2.1 WD and non-CSS presentational hints

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 06:11:26 -0400
Message-ID: <3D6215CE.178A122F@escape.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

"L. David Baron" wrote:
> 
> However, I've yet to see a good argument that CSS2.0 is interoperably
> implementable, as written.  We need a much clearer definition of
> "non-CSS presentational hint" ... Do we instead define it as
> any stylistic suggestion associated with markup that has a
> clearly-defined presentational purpose?

That is, IMO, a good definition. 

      A non-CSS presentational hint is any stylistic
     suggestion associated with markup that indicates
     a specific presentational effect.

> That might work well for HTML as written, but the meaning doesn't make
> much sense given the implementation of HTML on the web today.

You mean the fact that <p> == double line break has become standard
practice? It is not, as I have pointed out to Dylan Schiemann[1],
required practice. Neither is making <em> italic, or making <dd>
indent 40px. However, <i> must have an italic font. The UA cannot
make it boldface, and it cannot make it underlined italics. It's
italics only, or nothing at all. So, here's a rule of thumb:

      If there's more than one correct way to present
     the markup in question, it's not a presentational
     hint.

<strong> can be rendered boldface, or loud, or red.
<b> can only be rendered boldface.
Therefore, the presentation associated with <strong> is not a non-CSS
presentational hint, and the presentation associated with <b> is.

Of course, a rule of thumb shouldn't be considered a substitute
definition, so it should be parenthesized and say "probably".

Is this clear enough?

~fantasai

---------
[1] fantasai. "Re: CSS 2.1 WD and non-CSS presentational hints", www-style@w3.org
      (2002-08-19).
      message-id: <3D6133C2.A46E50F1@escape.com>
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Aug/0234.html
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 06:07:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:15 GMT