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

Re: CSS is doomed (10 years per version ?!?)

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 16:01:44 +0200
Message-ID: <42C3FB48.7020606@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Orion Adrian schreef:
> Point granted. However, until I actually see 2.1 implemented fully in
> IE, it's a dead standard as long as IE retains its position as 80%+.

IE7 should be out this summer. Although Ďfullyí implemented will 
probably not be achieved, it should be a great step forward towards CSS 
2.1 (at least, I sincerely hope so :)).


> The consistency argument only wins when you have a winning solution
> already, but we don't. CSS layout isn't where it needs to be. It was a
> failed experiment and saying, let's not rework the problem because
> authors might have to adjust to not being stabbed in the eye (my own
> personal exaggeration), is a flawed argument. Yes users will have to
> learn where the new knobbies are, but they'll like the end result.

Not to say that Iím in favour of your solution, but display: "aaa" "..." 
1em "bcc" is of course also a new syntax without precedent (although in 
an CSS flavour, like your solution has an XML flavour), so either way 
people will have to learn a new syntax.


> It locks you into a bad design years after you learn it was a bad
> design.

I donít agree about CSS being a bad design, at most it has a few flaws 
here and there. And Ianís arguments against versioning sound plausible.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2005 14:02:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:38 GMT