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

Should we adapt WYSIWYG in CSS?

From: GS <junkmail.gs@c2i.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:10:19 +0100
Message-ID: <008001c2d9a4$ab4cdb80$f289d9c1@edda>
To: <www-style@w3.org>

Should we adapt WYSIWYG philosopy in CSS?
(related to the thread: Length unit relative to media-width) 

Here is some reasons for:
1) Current use of the web. 
I guess that as much as 30% , 
or more of all webpages might be better served
if the standards adapts here. 
2) It can be done easily. 
I think that a reference property is sufficient, if implemented correct
Something like this:
reference-type:          screen-width  | client-width | none 
reference-size:          <pixels>    /*  designers screen width */
referenze-minimum: <pixels>    /*  prevents ambigeous small scale*/
reference -width:      <mm>       /*  designers screen width in mm */

3) Who should decide?
Should the CSS standard forbid what people wants to use?
I think that the webpage autor should be more respected. 
You must have in sight that the need for a WYSIWYG approach is high.
4) There is no really drawback
The old philosophy can still be used.
I also think that such an adaption will not spoil anyting. 
It actually makes the content oriented design easier.
5) Standards must adapt or die.
I think that W3C must adapt to changes in actual use. 
If not, the standards will become irrelevant.
The historical web as an information library only, is outdated.  
6) Freedom of speech
You should not try to control how people use the web.
The web has made it easy for everyone to express opinions, 
or make their artwork public. 
Let the designer choose the design philosophy of his document.
It is his "right" to do it "wrong".
7) Avoid messed up use of  html/css
The css standards job is to let the designer be able to
do it "right" or "wrong" in a logical, consistent and correct way.
8) Adapts better to context philosophy
Content is much more than text. Text and style is closely connected. 
The word context describes this relationship. 

Do you agree or disagree?
Is there other good reasons for?
Is there ANY good  reasons AGAIST?

Gaute Sandvik
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 07:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:06 UTC