W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2004

Re: "active" CSS

From: Brian Sexton <discussion-w3c@ididnotoptin.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:36:13 -0700
Message-ID: <000601c4af11$2ac624f0$651aa143@desktop>
To: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

>> OBJECT element (a common header, footer, or navigational document, for
>> example) should replace the embedded document, its parent, the document 
>> at
> That's behavioural, not structural.
>> This seems to me a structural oversight--the ability to embed documents
>> without the ability to specify where their links open is a recipe for 
>> links
> Embedding is essentially presentational.  Structurally, for example,
> img elements are really just a special sort of a element.  Much use of
> img is purely presentational, e.g. text replacement, frame borders, etc.

I do not agree; the embedding of a subdocument seems clearly structural to 
me.  As for where the links in that subdocument open, you can call it 
behavioral, structural, presentational, comical, political, nonsensical, or 
Peggy Sue if you are so inclined, but whatever you want to call it, the fact 
is that strict HTML and XHTML provide a way to embed documents without a way 
to specify where links in those embedded documents open. 
Received on Sunday, 10 October 2004 21:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:15 UTC