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

Re: New layout language.

From: <Kris@meridian-ds.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:09:43 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD53CFBF6.7ECA7FBA-ON86257036.005E4614-86257036.005E4633@meridian-ds.com>


Orion,

Most of what you've said is patently absurd.  I've argued with you, I've
humored you, I've even taken time out of my day to educate you when you
couldn't (wouldn't) take the time to figure it out for yourself... despite
the fact that it's obvious.

We've both agreed that your system is essentially just a group of
shorthands, so my 8 elements is equal to your 4 in what it does.  Not to
mention what it says.

With that said, here's my last group of arguements to you before this
conversation is officially over in my mind.

I see now how your system provides for some margins.  However you're still
going to need to implement right and bottom margins for certain instances.
But I agree for the most part your system can handle most margins... most.

Again I'll state that this:

.left {
  position:absolute;
  top:10px;
  left:10px;
  width:200px;
  bottom:10px;
  min-height:400px;
}

isn't much different from this:

.left {
  left: 0%+10px;
  top: 0%+10px;
  width: 0%+200px;
  height: 400px + 100%; (which again I'll note doesn't have a bottom
margin)
}

Additionally, the CSS is more explicit up front which makes it easier for a
beginner to read and understand.  Which was your whole point initially.

I understand your point about degrading gracefully since you're only
measuring from left and top... however css with calc is absolutely capable
of exactly the same thing.  You've still proposed nothing new.  And my
notion of min-left and such would handle the same issue without having to
deal with calc.

Concerning whether MS would implement...  I'd rather not get into the MS
discussion again.  Concerning CSS I'll simply point out that what you've
describe is by no means compelling, and is no different than Absolute
positioning today with the noted MINOR exceptions.  With that said, I'd
have no hope of seeing it implemented, and I'll quitely point to the fact
that current CSS standards have been overlooked over there despite that
fact that I find a number of things QUITE compelling.  (Again I'll mention
CSS3 columns and nth-child, both of which are already seeing implementation
in other browsers)  With that in mind, let's take a second to consider this
statement of yours:

"Most layouts in use can be accomplished with either CSS or HTML tables in
IE. I would imagine to them their job is done."

The whole point of CSS layout was to get away from tabled layouts to begin
with.  The vast majority of devices that can browse the net today don't
read tabled layouts very well.  Again here we are into the discussion of
graceful degradation.  The point being that CSS styled H1-6/p/general
inline markups degrade fantastically.  If all else fails the system can
still read the fact that the markup falls in a certain order and that that
order's default styling should be X (whatever the device has been
programmed to do with that particular tag)  Thus the entire concept that we
should continue to use tabled layouts is a crock.  If our goal is usability
then we should abandon tabled layouts like the horrible mistake they so
obviously were.

With that rant out of my system, let's dicuss this point:

"...the benefit of the system resides not necessarily in it's layout model,
but in the fact that it separates layout from formatting (a plus)..."

This can be done with css currently.  You could break up your css into two
seperate css documents.  One layout, the other formatting.  In addition, if
this doesn't appeal you can simply seperate them all in one document.  I
can state .left{} in more than one place.  Once to describe layout, again
to describe formatting.  That's no different than what you're proposing.
Let's not confuse your ignorance of CSS with a need for changing the
system.

I'm not even going to address your other points since I don't really see
their significance.  I don't see how your proposal changes CMS creation in
any significant way.

Final Thoughts:

I've humored you for quite some time now.  I've taken time out of my
schedule to prove to you that CSS does what you say it cannot.  This isn't
to say that the experience wasn't worth the effort.  In fact, who knows,
perhaps CSS will benefit from this discussion, but that doesn't excuse your
ignorance of the system.  I don't mind if you truly understand how the
system works and think it needs tweaking (or tossing out completely,
although I find that highly unlikely).  I don't mind if you're ignorant and
could care less.  What I do mind is that you're ignorant of the system and
how it works.  You won't take the time to learn it yourself, so instead you
propose that the whole thing should be changed.  That is, in my mind, the
height of arrogance.  I don't want to flame the crap out of you.  You're a
human being like any of the rest of us, and you deserve some respect.  But
that respect was granted to you before you started this conversation and
has slowly degraded up until right now.  At this point I truly understand
that you don't know CSS, you don't care about CSS, all you care is that you
get your way, and you want us to back you.  Well I'm sorry, but I'm done
with this conversation.  It was stimulating to be sure, but you refuse to
listen to reason, and you refuse to learn from your mistakes.  And I'm out.

Kris
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 17:10:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT