W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2005

Re: [css3-ui] Problems with :read-only and :read-write

From: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:03:08 -0400
Message-Id: <p06230908bf17e2994dd3@[]>
To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org

Orion Adrian wrote:

>This is like saying an automatic transition in in drive by default.
>Just because something can be put into a state doesn't mean it's there
>all the time or by default.

A car needs a driver.  The web needs a developer. 
Cars are powerful systems and can be abused.  The 
web is a powerful system and can be abused.  If 
you are using this expression "accessible by 
default" in the way I think you are using it 
based on your response which I quoted above, then 
I would respectfully suggest that what you are 
asking for is impossible.  Any sufficiently 
powerful and flexible system will carry with it 
the potential for abuse.  (Gödel's incompleteness 
theorem comes immediately to mind.)

>You can keep the expressiveness without allowing for the abuse.

Show me.

>The web can go under a major paradigm shift without losing support of
>existing application much like I can still use command line and DOS
>apps more than a decade after the command line / WIMP shift.

I'd say show me at this point, too, except I 
think this point is off-topic for this list.

>  > Perhaps you should check with the
>  > W3C Technical Architecture Group <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/>.
>This is where the catch 22 comes in. I've been told there's no
>problem, everything is peachy. When I say, hey things could be better,
>I'm then told make something up. After I'm told to make something up I
>do and then people say there's no problem. When confronted, I'm
>usually just told to go away and start something somewhere else. The
>rediculousness of it all is just a little insane.

Two points:

First, I don't think anyone believes the web is 
perfect, so in some sense, there is "a problem". 
The question is whether there is a problem that 
is severe enough to warrant entirely replacing a 
working system (meaning CSS) that has finally 
achieved widespread (indeed, worldwide) support. 
It is that proposition with which I think you 
will find significant disagreement.

Second, yes you should go away and start 
something somewhere else.  I reiterate that 
proposing the elimination of CSS (which is the 
only semi-concrete proposal I recall you making) 
is inappropriate on a list whose purpose is 
devoted to discussing CSS itself.  I'm by no 
means the list police, here, but it seems to me 
that a concrete proposal for working within CSS 
to make it better would be welcomed, but a 
proposal for eliminating CSS and establishing a 
new language would not.  Accordingly, it seems 
appropriate to take such a proposal elsewhere. 
To be helpful, I suggest the TAG, but you are 
free to look elsewhere, as well.

For my own part, I will confine all future 
responses to you to issues which directly apply 
to the CSS styling language.  I encourage others 
to do the same.

>I'm for making everything better, not one thing at the cost of the

I look forward to reading the press reports about 
your innovative work in changing the basic 
structure of the World Wide Web.

-Adam Kuehn
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 16:04:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC