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

Re: CSS 4?

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:16:50 +0100
Message-ID: <12522947336.20031029221650@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Dylan Schiemann <dylans@yahoo.com>, www-style@w3.org

On Sunday, October 26, 2003, 11:18:58 AM, Ian wrote:

IH> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Dylan Schiemann wrote:
IH>> (someone):
>>> 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.
>>
>> Sure, but why do this through css, and not through the dom using
>> addBinding()

IH> Because (and this is the litmus test that proves the binding is
IH> presentational and not semantic) you want different bindings depending on
IH> the media type of the document. And even on the same media, you want to be
IH> able to use different bindings for different alternate stylesheets. For
IH> example a "cute" stylesheet could use a binding which showed bouncing
IH> bunnies next to :invalid form fields, and hovering on the bunnies could
IH> cause the bunnies to walk into the form field and "fix" the error; while a
IH> "business" stylesheet could use a binding that should showed a red border
IH> and displayed a dialog box when the user exit the field.

IH> Both cases are conveying the same _semantics_, which were originally set
IH> out in the XForms specification. However, they are giving the user a
IH> different presentation, look, and feel. They are thus stylistic.

Thanks Ian, that is a very well put litmus test and clearly shows
different presentations of the same semantics.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 16:27:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:24 GMT