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

Re: Browsers will never get it right [was Re:Blocked-base parsing?]

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:42:17 -0700
Message-ID: <006b01c5ba3e$58adefe0$c302000a@internal.toppro.net>
To: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <www-style@w3.org>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Browsers will never get it right [was Re:Blocked-base parsing?]

| Orion wrote:
| > On 9/15/05, Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com> wrote:
| > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:43:37 +0300, Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
| > > wrote:
| > >
| > > > So I say that a new model is already upon us. I say that it's time we
| That's basically just describing the normal lifecycle of standards.  Start
| with bloat; new lean and mean targetted; industry committees; new bloat.
| > > > took a look and see why so many people are starting to prefer RSS over
| > > > standard HTML feeds and in that view I find we'll see that client side
| I would say that RSS was closer to a re-invention of gopher than to
| a re-invention of HTML.  I would say the Wikipedia language was rather
| closer to the original concept of HTML, although, potentially unfortunately,
| it has escape mechanism for including raw HTML/CSS.

David, good point about Wiki languages (there are few of them in fact with the 
similar concept ).
I would extend this further: appearance of Wiki languages highlights the 
HTML is not a content definition language but rather a strange mix of
content *and* layout definitions. At least it is used this way now. This mix I 
is the source of many conceptual problems in HTML and CSS.

Wiki (and Blog, btw) languages are just an attempt to clear content from layout 

To define layout it should be a different language or just one additional 
tag/element in HTML+ suitable for
defining layout and clearly separates layout definition and content definition.

Sort of...
   <frame layout="gridbag" role="showcase" >
        <frame name="east" role="sidebar">   ...simplified html markup here... 
        <frame name="west" role="content" scrollable> ...simplified html markup 
here... </frame>
('frame' here is not a exactly <frame> in current HTML)

I think that CSS also should reflect content and layout styling separation.
For example: overflow, visible, position, etc. attributes cannot be used for 
content as these CSS attributes change (I would say - destroy) content semantic.

Andrew Fedoniouk.

| > > > CSS and Javascript isn't a good solution.
| > possible (e.g. tracking what you've read or haven't, marking posts for
| > keywords). Since the structure of an HTML document is unknown on any
| > give site beyond the required html, head, title and body elements, you
| > end up not being able to determine what is content and what isn't.
| Making HTML simple was a deliberate part of the original design.  Whilst
| now you seem to need to take expensive web design courses to use it, the
| idea was that it was so simple that any secretary or librarian could
| mark up text.
| There are other SGML (and XML) applications, like DocBook and various
| electronic data interchange formats that are aimed for more sophisticated
| users or specific document structures.
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 21:43:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC