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

Re: css layout should be symmetrical

From: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:10:48 +0300
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000020162455@umail.ru>
On Wednesday 20 February 2002 19:38, L. David Baron wrote:
|   On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Vadim Plessky wrote:
|   > I guess a lot of current problems with CSS caused by the fact that
|   > people who were designing CSS had no Desktop Publishing (and
|   > traditional Publishing) expereince.
|
|   Why do you think that?  I think the current CSS box model is far too
|   biased towards traditional publishing and desktop publishing relative to
|   its support for layout of user interfaces (although there are some
|   parts, like the inline box model, that are a bit unusual).  There are

well, I was in Fonts and DTP business in 1991-1993.
That was time when Adobe just released PS Type1 specs, in order not to loose 
fonts market to Microsoft's and Apple's TrueType.
Ironically, Xerox Ventura Publisher 2.0 (yes, it was Xerox Ventura at that 
time) , running under GEM environment, was doing all the tasks, even on 
entry-level 386 computer
(and Word 2000 is still away from that version of Ventura)

If anyone of Ventura (or Aldus Pagemaker) developers is one the list - pls 
let me know!
Basic idea of "frame-based" design, very consistent in Ventura, is still 
missing in CSS, even in CSS3.
I believe 10 years is *enough* to write a spec, no?..
You don't need to take something extraordinar - just pls let me to do same 
layout Ventura 2.0 was capable of in CSS - and I (and many other people) will 
be happy!

Another example: I guess none of browsers on the market support HStem and 
VStem font selection. Despite its presence in latest CSS specs.
Why? Probably  because developers of those browsers do not understand 
importance of those values. Why? Probably because [current] developers were 
never working in DTP industry.
 
|   also a number of good reasons why a standard for the Web should differ
|   from traditional publishing.  Among them, a web standard needs to allow
|   for device-independence and interaction of author and user preferences.

You should be able to publish content on any media - paper, web, PDA, 
e-paper, etc.
Of course you should use different CSS profiles for different medias.
For example, I doubt that web-enabled Refrigerator wil be ever able to render 
HTMl (or CSS) tables. And, obviously, I see no reason why you may want to use 
Tables for the page displayed on your refrigerator (or microwave owen)
|
|   > I am subscribed to this list more than an year: and still surprised
|   > that there are no postings from Adobe, Quark, Macromedia, Xerox, Canon,
|   > etc. guys. (not to mention producers of traditional offset presses, or
|   > new *all-digital* machines)
|   > It seems those companies tend to ignore current CSS developement.
|
|   That's not a logical conclusion.  Some active members of the working
|   group don't post much on www-style.  (I've been guilty of that at some

I know.
But as I can't become a member of W3C (no way to pay required amount of 
money), I stay sticked to www-style (and other www-xxx) lists

|   points since I became an Invited Expert -- I often don't have enough
|   time to keep track of more than a handful of lists at once, or any at
|   all.)  Did you read:
|
|   http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-selectors-20011113/#ACKS

yes, I know who you are :-)
|
|   However, I also wonder why you think all of these companies *should* be
|   paying attention to CSS development.  After all, CSS is a standard for
|   the *Web*, and some of these companies aren't (as far as I know) working
|   on Web authoring tools or user-agents.

I believe CSS is *presentational* format, and can be used for content (I 
mean: *readable content*, like newspaper, datasheet, etc.) distribution.

So, not only Adobe and Quark but CNN, Fox News, etc. should be on the list.
They shoudl finally learn how to present (and *lay out*) their content.
Problem is that they have a lot of content at a moment but can't provide it 
in readable (or hearable) format. Especially outside US, where broadband 
connections are still not very common.

|
|   -David

-- 

Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html
KDE mini-Themes
http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 12:10:06 GMT

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