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

Re: CSS 4?

From: David Latapie <julian27@ifrance.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:26:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <80E20976-0AFD-11D8-AEA2-000393A56AE8@ifrance.com>
To: www-style@w3.org



On Thursday 30 October 2003, at 12:17PM, Daniel Glazman wrote:

> [JavaScript vs no-JavaScript]

Whatever is my personal opinion on JS, the question of "should we or 
should we not accept JavaScript?" is an old one. As such, something 
must be done, in one way or another. I thought ECMAScript was the 
answer, but I never found a browser able to allow ECMA but not JS (out 
of iCab) so I can not say.
As for now, the JS question acts as a pebble in the shoe: acceptable 
but irritating and we are longing for getting rid of it (the question, 
not necessarily JS)

1. There is a demand for JavaScript. The pertinence of this demand is 
irrelevant

2. If we want to eliminate JS (provided we want to get rid of it, which 
is still unsure), here are some proposals:
     a. emulate some of its features through CSS for instance. It is 
alredy on the way (onFocus, for instance) but we can do more (some 
weeks ago, somebody proposed a new style for collapsable list, wich is 
a typical use of JS)
     b. advocate for changing minds (like the "WaSP" effort or the 
current "Go CSS" effort)

Of course, these methods must be used in combination.

>> That is contrary to what I have seen.  More and more people are 
>> turning off
>> javascript by default in their browsers due to all the security 
>> problems and
>> annoying behaviors (e.g. pop-ups etc.).
>
> I am totally with Dylan here and think you are totally wrong.

I think the absolute number of JS-disbled browser is increasing (as is 
the geek population), but not the relative one. That may change in the 
future (see point 2b above), especially as people are more 
computer-litterate (Some years ago in France, I met a lot of people not 
knowing what the hell was an e-mail.)

> No, CSS should not deal with the contents of URIs, sorry. I strongly
> disagree with you here and think it would be an enormous mistake.

I agree with you. One thing at a time. Let's leave URI as they are, at 
least for now.

-- 
David
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 12:30:35 GMT

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