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

Re: Re[23]: css with attribues [hardware]

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:29:42 +0000
Message-Id: <869F714E-F64C-4353-AE6C-9C64BC7529AA@dorward.me.uk>
To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>

On 18 Jan 2008, at 13:22, 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 ?
> DD> Not all user agents support JS
> +
> DD> You would also need to account for how difficult it is to  
> implement
> UAs, not supporting JS [they are not browsers, not realtime UAs :) ],

Lynx is a browser. Lynx does not support JavaScript.

> should download css before parsing html.

Why? CSS is supposed to be an optional presentation layer. User  
agents shouldn't need to download it at all.

>>> DD> The reduction you say will be achieved
>>> DD> will be so small as to not be 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.
> DD> For example? In my experience, the seldom used features are those
> DD> which browser vendors tend not to implement.
> Different items (independently of their nature)
> have different frequency.
> Seldom used properties is only right part of frequency diagram.
> Vendors do not carry responsibility for this nature.

You still haven't provided any examples.

>>>>>>> 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
>>> DD> is an advantage. Your proposal removes that.
>>> Proposal withdraw possibilities neither in HTML, nor in CSS.
>>> It only present new.
> DD> So maintainers have to look in more places to find out what  
> applies
> DD> to an element.
> What is the "more places" ? Only tag and css. Only css is added.
> This is disadvantage, important to mention !?

Currently, a well written document will have one place to look for  
semantics (the HTML document) and one place to look for presentation  
(the stylesheet). Your proposal would put semantics in the stylesheet  
as well as the markup.

>>> DD> CSS contains presentation. You can discard the presentation
>>> DD> without losing any meaning. Your proposal moves ...
>>> Not 'moves', but 'allows to move'.
>>> Nothing disturb author to write in previous manner.
> DD> Initial authors perhaps, but not maintainers who have to find out
> DD> where the previous author decided to put the information.
> Content of elements will remain in .htm,
> proposal does not give possibility of put content into css.

I said "information", not "content". This would include expansions of  
acronyms, URIs that are being linked to, and the language the  
document is written in (to give a few examples).

David Dorward
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 14:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:33 UTC