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

Re: Center DIV

From: Dylan Schiemann <dylans@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:06:17 -0700
Message-ID: <3F0B3249.3040404@yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

Christoph Päper wrote:
> Charles Kendrick <charles@isomorphic.com>:
>>HTML, CSS and DOM can be appropriate tools for *both* document
>>construction and web application creation.
> You'll need a scripting language along with DOM. I don't know what you
> understand as "web applications", probably basically the use of the HTML
> elements for forms in combination with a serverside or, in lesser useful
> cases, a clientside scripting language.

<ds>Certainly you've seen more interesting web applications than sites 
using basic forms?  The most often described example I've seen is tools 
to build and modify web sites while seeing the site exactly as it 
appears in the browser.  At a minimum, this requires text-editing 
capabilities in addition to form controls.  More useful and usable 
versions require much more than this.

Another example would be a very visual browser-based security and 
facilities management and monitoring software (something I'm presently 
working on).  SVG provides much of what is needed for that, bypassing 
many of the limitations of using (x)html/css/dom.  However, why should 
there not be an agreed upon standard for styling things like browser 
chrome and scrollbars.  And why do you find client-side scripting 
languages to be less useful?

Another example is some of the innovative e-mail clients ( 
http://www.nervemail.org/ for example),

>>The fact that the same language and tools and the same skillset
>>work for both purposes is a huge benefit - not a problem.
> I've yet to see a web application developer to mark up a document correctly,
> though.

<ds>Please.  Was this flamebait?  (Not that it is trivial if your 
audience uses Internet Explorer)</ds>

>>If the W3C working groups continue to define the web browser
>>as strictly a document viewer,
> The W3C doesn't define web browsers. It merely specifies how its standards
> should be interpreted.

<ds>and your point is what... that css should only be used for 
specifying how documents are viewed, and should not be extended to 
describe how applications should be styled?</ds>

>>and to deflect all requests for functionality that does not
>>fit into the strict notion of a media-independent document,
> Why doesn't my watch include a mobile phone and an MP3 player? Because its
> job is to tell me time and date, nothing more. It does its job perfectly as
> do the other two things I carry around.

<ds>There is no specification that says a watch can never contain an mp3 
player.  That is your choice to not combine them.  The point is that 
there is choice.  Have you seen IBMs watch/earrings/necklace mobile 
phone prototype?  How about phone/pda/mp3/camera combinations?</ds>

> Do you know XForms, XQuery etc.?

<ds>I do.  What's your point, besides making the original poster feel 
inferior?  It isn't like there are any widely used implementations yet. 
  And it doesn't solve the posters problem of wanting to be able to 
completely style a web application using standards, or for browser 
vendors to allow "skin" developers to use css and xhtml to modify the 
browser rather than a proprietary spec.  It sounds like you're saying 
css wasn't intended to be a general style language, only a document 
style language?  I believe Opera and mozilla disagree with this.</ds>

>>it is very likely that a proprietary technology will
>>ultimately be used for web applications,
> For many cases that would be the right choice indeed.

<ds>And why is that?</ds>

-Dylan Schiemann
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 17:02:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:08 UTC