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

Re: Re[22]: css with attribues [software]

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:39:18 +0000
Message-Id: <310FA71C-A17F-4496-8D21-9CD5184EBDE2@dorward.me.uk>
To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>

On 18 Jan 2008, at 10:09, Dmitry Turin wrote:
>>>>> Let attributes in css will be media-specific.

>>> DD> that could reasonable change under different media types
>>>   Otherwise he will must remember, which characteristics
>>> (attributes-properties) spread from particular media to all media,
>>> and which are not.

> DD> Which just underlines the inappropriateness of CSS for your  
> proposed
> DD> feature.
> Whole appropriateness:

No. As I just explained, while it might do a number of things which  
solve various problems with your use case, it also does a number of  
things which makes it incompatible with it. Media specific  
stylesheets is a prime example.

>>>>> DD> "I am writing CSS, therefore I am describing how the
>>>>> DD> semantics should be represented to the user".
>>>>> Yes, but with redundant 'style='.
>>> DD> Authors do not have to use style attributes
>>> DD> (and generally should not use them).
>>> I.e. create unique class for unique place of site ?
> DD> There are various ways that selectors can be crafted to match
> DD> elements. Classes might come into it.
> You can write properties either in tag,
> or in definition of class, isnt't it ?
> What is the third way, about which you are speaking ?

You seem to be confusing a class (or a class selector) with a rule- 
set. You might want to reread those parts of the HTML and CSS  
>>>>> DD> CSS expert working on the look while HTML experts work on the
>>>>> content
>>>>> My signature at the end of each letter is content or look ??!!
>>> DD> It is content.
>>> Strongly disagreed !!
>>> It is look. Even existance of XSL says about my rightness !!
> DD> No, it is content. Possibly not primary content ...
>   How many types of content can you separate ??

Quite a few, but any discussion about potentially separating them out  
isn't one that is appropriate for www-style.

>   You can accept convention, that any look is content -

No. Content (written in HTML) has an appearance (written in CSS).

> and name each content, which is not content really,
> as 'secondary content'.

Umm. No.

>   E.g. Soviet Union has no unemployment. But western books says,
> that it has unemployment - during time, when man move from one city
> to another city.
>   E.g. You can name healthy man as hidden sick -
> and let he will live hundred years.

Oh please, comparing me to propaganda writers is hardly appropriate.

> DD> I think you might find a lot of authors objecting if you
> DD> remove their credits from published documents while claiming  
> that was
> DD> just presentation.
> You are substituting question.

You were the one who gave the example in the first place!

> If you will delete signature from header/footnote of each page,
> except last page, then you will save information !!
> but author will claim, because reason of marketing
> (he want, what advertisement would climb into eyes).

So some content is duplicated on multiple pages. That doesn't make it  

>>>>> Multiple repeated attributes ON CONCRETE SITE are 'look' ONLY,
>>>>> independently of how W3's officials specify them.

I rather system the OED would disagree with you.

>>>>> DD> presentation in CSS and semantics in HTML works just
>>>>> DD> fine, with little duplication of effort
>>>>> Please, multiply to quantity of population, than to quantity of
>>>>> pages on sites - and you will get real number of duplications,
>>>>> which are quite not little.
>>> DD> The vast majority of duplicated content is wholesale blocks of
>>> DD> content (such as page footers)
>>> Objection is not suitable, because describe other case -
>>> duplication of element's content _and_ element's attributes
>>> (instead of duplication of attributes only).
> DD> there is very
> DD> little in the way of attributes which are duplicated from page to
> DD> page which are not either (a) presentational or (b) accompanied by
> DD> elements and content.
> Agreed.

In that case, don't you accept that your proposal would have  
negligible benefit if implemented?

David Dorward
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 14:39:47 UTC

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