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

Re: Are there W3C definitions of presentation and content?

From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:06:30 +0300
To: "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.sxajk4pw8nstxa@lomarnona>

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:18:41 +0300, David Woolley  
<david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> and author to assume, in a later time, that a certain chapter should
>> appear before anything else in the book, and that modification is done
>> fairly easily, if that portion is marked up well in a separate chapter
>> (and for html, in an element with an ID)
> The example is bad, because people do not put book chapters in random
> orders.  The real problem is that they try to put the whole of the
> rest of the publishers catalogue at the front of the web page (whereas
> in paper books, there might, at most, be a page of recent similar
> publications at the very end).

I agree it was a bad example (right after I pressed send button actually),  
I meant the example for layout, and html does not have a multi-paged  
structure anyway.

The problem is how html element order affects layout vastly, while it  
shouldn't, and we can't do
anything about it with css, and we have to use extra markup for layout  
purposes, which sort of destroys the aim of seperation of content from  
style (layout?). I should be able to group html elements with basic CSS,  
give them pseudo-containers, style those pseudo containers, put them  
anywhere I like. I should be able to put my navigation on the right of the  
screen under my displayed logo for monitor displays, put it on top / at  
the bottom if need be for handhelds; for certain display resolutions, I  
should be able to put all my links in a single side bar, while I should be  
able to put some at the right of the screen, some at the left (e.g. three  
coloumn) without having to change the markup, without resorting to heavier  
languages, without resorting to server-side tricks. And this does not  
require rocket science.

>> Yes, we have xsl and everybody should learn it?
> Firstly, one of the most important constraints on CSS is that it
> ought to be relatively human friendly.  That limits its power to
> some extent.

If you remember my pseudo-parent 'proposal', the CSS for this was not  
complicated at all, while the syntax could be much enhanced by the bright  
minds on this list, if they could somehow like the idea and build on it.  
Arranging layout appearance order should have been one of the goals of  
CSS, and it just does not have to be complicated at all, and such a use  
also encourages a proper use of id's.

> However, what's really needed is for people to learn how to structure
> documents well and to use appropriate tools for the job.  If what's
> written really doesn't matter much and it is the appearence that matters,
> a final form graphics language is what should be used, not a text
> document markup language.
> Typically "web design" is taught in art college not as a writing
> related subject, but HTML is a writer's tool, not a commercial
> artist's.
> For "web pages" appearing different from the competitor is always going
> to be important, so you are never going to get total uniformity in
> structure.  Final form graphic presentation gives you the ability to
> do that.  The problem for CSS is to encourage the authors to provide
> as much structure as they are ever going to be willing to give, whilst
> accepting that marketing people either don't think in terms of structure,
> or think it terms of it, but don't want the viewer to understand how
> they really think.

If people stopped using extra markup for styling / layout, the web would  
be a much better place indeed...

Received on Sunday, 18 September 2005 09:07:11 UTC

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