W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2003

Re: css as xml?

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:20:04 -0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Peter Foti (PeterF)" <PeterF@systolicnetworks.com>
CC: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA795106.214EC%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 2/19/03 12:55 PM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Peter Foti (PeterF) wrote:
>> 
>> I haven't been following this thread, but I can think of 1 benefit of an CSS
>> as XML... XML User Agents would only need a single parser, vs. having both
>> an XML parser and a CSS parser.
> 
> This isn't true. They'd still need an HTTP parser, a URI parser, a CSS
> value parser, a JavaScript parser, a PNG parser, etc. In any case, the
> parser is by _far_ the _easiest_ part of CSS to implement, so this isn't
> really an advantage.

I completely agree with Ian.

I can't believe people are *still* trotting out the tired and completely
irrelevant argument of "only need a single parser".  Not only is this
completely false (as Ian handily demonstrated), but is about equivalent to
saying you "only need a single for loop".  It really is that dumb.

Of the dozens (millions?) of things you could try to optimize a
data/programming/development model for, why the **** is there such an
obsession with optimizing for a "single parser"?

Are people being paid per angle bracket or what?

Tantek (who is seriously wondering if there is some sort of underground
"angle bracket racket" (which would make a cool name for a band...))
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 18:07:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:19 GMT