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 15:03:09 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5A9CB0B5.4A5E523E-ON86257036.006E26C6-86257036.006E26F4@meridian-ds.com>


Ok Orion, I'll address some stuff here just cause I probably SHOULD.

Orion wrote:

>I appologized? What more do you want from me? When proven wrong I said
>"I stand corrected". This, to you, is arrogance? What would be an
>appropriate response to being wrong to you? Seriously I want to know.
>I do listen to reason, I really do. CSS is capable of a lot more than
>I gave it credit for.
>
>And I don't care about my way. I'm a usability specialist who
>concentrates on the user. My mental model doesn't matter. Theirs does.
>I take no pride in the design put forth. I didn't even specify a
>syntax. I just specified my understanding of the mathematics.

Ok first, I was a bit harsh in the last post, and for that I appologize.
Here's my problem laid out simply:

Your model system is virtually identical to absolute positioning.  In fact,
with calc() (which your model will essentially require as well) we could
use css EXACTLY the same way as you've proposed your method to work.  Yes
or no?  I'm assuming you actually read through my CSS code for the last
model just to see what I did.  The way I set my absolute position was from
right and left yes, but I wouldn't have to do that with calc().

Secondly, You claim that your system will seperate layout from formatting.
You know what, that's totally cool by me, and I have no problem with the
ideal.  In fact, it's a good enough idea that perhaps it should be taught
in schools and on the net and such, but I see no reason to frame people
into it.  It's an added level of complexity.  Sure we all know it's just a
quick link tag in the html, but I learned html and css by reading source,
and I think that would be just that much harder.  And as I said before, you
can already treat the problem with css as it stands currently (assuming you
see it as a problem)

XSL already seperates structure from content.  There's no need to re-invent
it.  xml+xsl+css makes for some of the most powerful/versatile pages out
there.

Finally, I wasn't really looking for an apology.  I got one and that's cool
and all, but what I'm really looking for is to get you to take a step back.
Realize that the system you've proposed could be accomplished with the calc
() and (min/max)(left,top,right,bottom) attributes, and to just help us
push for those.  We don't need to rock the boat.  We don't need to toss CSS
layout out the window.  It's one step away from being able to do everything
you've outlined, but you seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath
water.  Giving us a mental model to work from was great.  I'm glad we got
to see exactly what you had in mind.  But I showed you very explicitely how
the CSS to do your layout worked.  It works VERY similarly to what you've
proposed, and with this minor additions, what you've proposed could be a
reality.  No need for a redesign.  That's what's frustrating me.  You're
beating this horse that doesn't exist, and ignoring the elephant that's
right behind you.

I'm not a css master by any stretch of the imagination.  The reason that
the layout wasn't immediately obvious to me was because I was unsure if I
should use margins or left/right attributes.  That's because I largely
avoid absolute layouts.  Although again, I admit if the system worked
without overlaps and such (the reason that completely absolute layouts
don't see more use) I'd be more apt to use it.  That to say though that I
was sure I could do the layout in css as soon as I saw it.  Virtually any
layout can be done similarly with absolute children of the body tag.

Again, I'm sorry for blowing up at you, but I'm trying to paint my position
here as crystal clearly as possible, and what frustrates me about you is
that you don't really seem to care that the system you're talking about is
already almost in place.  THAT is what I see as arrogant.  The desire to
toss out what's there and working currently in favor of something that
doesn't even exist and really isn't any different.  Does that make sense?
Seriously, I'm not trying to be a butt.  I just think that the system
you've described is almost already a reality, and to me it's arrogant to
replace it.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Kris
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 20:03:38 GMT

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