W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Re[21]: css with attribues [hardware]

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:20:05 +0000
Message-Id: <23BC467F-EA85-4CAC-AB96-6AD8BC238F00@dorward.me.uk>
To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>

On 18 Jan 2008, at 10:38, Dmitry Turin wrote:
> DD> A new tag doesn't require any user agents to rewrite their entire
> DD> parse engine to mix in data from multiple souce.
>
> Since engine support JS, it is 'trigger' engine, isn't it ?

Not all user agents support JS (and JS, like CSS, should be an  
optional layer).
http://www.greytower.net/archive/articles/tsutsumi.html
http://icant.co.uk/articles/seven-rules-of-unobtrusive-javascript/

> DD> The reduction you say will be achieved will be so small as to  
> not be
> DD> worthwhile.
>
> Many properties are used extremely seldom;
> and many properties, proposed to standardizations,
> will be used extremely seldom,
> but manufactorer of browsers spend efforts to implement them.

For example? In my experience, the seldom used features are those  
which browser vendors tend not to implement.

You would also need to account for how difficult it is to implement  
something - if a <foo> element just requires the browser to present  
the data in some way, then the work needed to be done by the browser  
vendor could be as little as "Add 'foo' to the list of known  
elements, add one line to the browser default stylesheet". Your  
proposal would be rather more difficult to implement.

>>>>> User gets benefit (unnecessary to keep separation in brain),
>>> DD> As mentioned, this is a disadvantage.
>>> Excuse me, explain, how "unnecessary to keep separation in brain"
>>> is "disadvantage".
> DD> I've already explained how separating presentation from content  
> is an
> DD> advantage. Your proposal removes that.
>
> Proposal withdraw possibilities neither in HTML, nor in CSS.
> It only present new.

So maintainers have to look in more places to find out what applies  
to an element.

> DD> CSS contains presentation. You can discard the presentation  
> without
> DD> losing any meaning. Your proposal moves ...
>
> Not 'moves', but 'allows to move'.
> Nothing disturb author to write in previous manner.

Initial authors perhaps, but not maintainers who have to find out  
where the previous author decided to put the information.

> DD> ... meaning into an external
> DD> file. It cannot be discarded without losing meaning.
>
> Author can harm itself more simply: by deleting instead of moving.
> And author can make this even now.

The specification doesn't encourage authors to throw away data.

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 11:20:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:58 GMT