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

Re: Simple template-based editing

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:12:49 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105100306121d2b9603@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 10/3/05, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> > Actually, no.  If you factor in the need for separation of presentation
> > from content, you have the best argument against preserving presentation
> > in copy & paste operations, which, IMHO, should never be done by editors
> > under any circumstances; or at least not by default, as is unfortunately
>
> Lachlan, that is so far from customers' needs that it is, sorry to say,
> shocking to read that almost 15 years ago after we hit the problem with
> Grif...
>
> You are thinking markup editors, I am thinking wysiwyg markup editors. There
> is not a single reason on earth why, if you do wysiwyg editing, you should
> not allow the user to copy styles too. Of course, you should allow the user
> to "reset" styles after pasting if he/she wants/needs to, but that's trivial to
> implement.
>
> A document _is_ structure + presentation. Why should a user action preserve
> only the first part of it?

I think this has to do with the multiple parts of presentation.
Presentation that delivers semantics; e.g. italics, bold and all caps
for emphasis. Presentation that improves scanability and readability;
e.g. bolded, larger headings, font-selection. And presentation that
delivers asthetics; e.g. color selection, lines and images. This last
category is often very hard to identify.

So really, what presentation are we talking about preserving?

--

Orion Adrian
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 13:12:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:41 GMT