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

Re: CSS 4?

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:51:56 +0000 (UTC)
To: Dylan Schiemann <dylans@yahoo.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0310232145110.10860@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Dylan Schiemann wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> In the extreme case, however, it would be possible to do something like:
>>    link { binding: url(internalLinks.xml#link); }
>> ...where internalLinks.xml is a BECSS binding that defines how elements
>> should be turned into links.
> As I've mentioned previously, behaviors used in this way bother me
> because it uses the css mechanism to add much more than style.

BECSS bindings and similar technologies are designed to add stylistic
(albeit quite involved) look and feel to documents.

They are not designed to add semantics to the document.

For example, BECSS-like technologies could be used to bind the logic to
XForms controls. No new semantics -- the XForms controls already have the
XForms semantcs -- but a look and feel (and in this case logic) that
implements those semantics.

It is, of course, possible to abuse this. But it is possible to abuse CSS
already, for example by writing a document using only <div> elements, or
writing stylesheets that insert data like this:

   body:after { content: "Written by A. N. Other."; }

Yes, this adds more than style to the document, and is wrong, but it
doesn't mean the concept is wrong, because you can use the exact same
selector and property with a slightly different value and have a purely
stylistic case:

   body:after { content: "\263A"; }

> I have argued in the past that at a minimum, bindings should have their
> own "binding sheet" and perhaps their own type, for example text/becss.
> However, this does make it difficult when a binding describes style and
> logic, as style rules included through a binding lose their place in the
> cascade if completely separated from css.

One use of XBL (which I hope BECSS will support) is scoping of style
rules. That is purely stylistic, and, as Hyatt pointed out, well-defined.

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 17:51:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:09 UTC