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

Re: New layout language.

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:51:02 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c801050706125175f91588@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 7/6/05, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> Orion Adrian wrote:
> 
> >>Hear hear ^_^.
> >>
> >>I entirely agree. And I think it would be more constructive if we took
> >>the discussion towards improving what is still lacking in the existing
> >>model.
> >>
> >>
> >How so? Why not move in a direction that would increase what you could
> >do with the system and not just how it looks?
> >
> There is a standardised role="navigation" attribute in XHTML 2.0
> (alongside 'main', 'secondary', 'banner' and more, a list which will
> likely expand before it is finished) which specifies the role of a
> section in a document, and you can perfectly well select on that with
> *[role=navigation] { position: whatever }.

I find it hard to believe that advertisements, the company logo and
links to the privacy policy are a document.

The idea is to give a means to do with without the need for server
side transformation and content management.

I still haven't seen a mechanism to get around that. Why am I being
told that I have to pollute my content with all this other stuff
before I serve it? Why not serve each thing separately and deal with
it all on the client side.

> As long as page authors use those role attributes (which I think they
> will), you can write a user style sheet which overrides any page layout
> on those sections, and position everything exactly how you want it.

Why is there still this silly reliance on user style sheets when
people don't use them. Power users use them, but they're unlikely to
be the ones with the problem. Users don't use user style sheets
(statistically speaking).

> >Separation of layout and formatting and separation of content from
> >interface improves gives you capabilities you simply can't have with
> >them together.
> >
> I *really* don't see which additional capabilities that gives. It is
> just syntax.

I know you read the primer. It gives the ability to move layout to the
device so that content authors don't have to create layouts for every
type of device. The device can simply take the content and deal with
how it pleases.

> >Why are people so against the split?
> >
> >
> Because it's pointless and because inventing a new language for every
> 'problem' is not a solution.

Would you rather write database commands in SQL or C++. I'm thinking
SQL. Why? Because the langauge was design and optimized for the
particular task.

These are scopes for languages I'd like to see (just to set the record
straight):

Data, Business, Semantics, Layout, Formatting

Five lousy languges. One more than we have now.

Separating Data from Business from Presentation wasn't pointless. It's
the foundation of modern architecture. This will too be seen as
fundamental.

-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 19:51:06 GMT

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