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

Re: Re[26]: css with attribues [software]

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:29:30 +0000
Message-Id: <6AC5ECD7-3ED8-4960-A043-0F6B510481AE@dorward.me.uk>
To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>

On 22 Jan 2008, at 14:24, Dmitry Turin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> DD> CSS expert working on the look
>>>>>>>>> DD> while HTML experts work on the content
>>>>>>>>> My signature at the end of each letter is content or look ??!!
>>>>>>> DD> It is content.
>>>>>>> It is look. Even existance of XSL says about my rightness !!
>>>>> You can accept convention, that any look is content -
> DD> what something is is not determined by where you put it.
>
> Not 'where', but 'how much time'.

The time it takes to turn a background blue doesn't change that a  
blue background is a matter of presentation. The time it takes to  
state that the primary language of a document is English doesn't  
change that that information is not a matter of presentation.

>>>   If acronym are in several places of document,
>>> it's reasonable to put its expansion into css.
>>>   If language are the same for several documents,
>>> it's reasonable to put it into css.
> DD> No, it isn't, because those pieces of data are about meaning  
> not style.
>
> You mess up 'what is style' and 'where are saved'.

No. You seem to have difficulty separating the two concepts.

>>> DD> it also does a number of
>>> DD> things which makes it incompatible with it.
> DD> Media types is the obvious one.
>
> As was said,
>
> @media all {
>   tag {attr:val}
> }

And I explained why that was insufficient.

>>>>>>>>> Multiple repeated attributes ON CONCRETE SITE are 'look' ONLY,
>>>>>>>>> independently of how W3's officials specify them.
>>> DD> I rather system the OED would disagree with you.
> DD> The Oxford English Dictionary.
>
> I found in Wikipedia, but i'm not finding bond between
> quoted question and OED.

The definitions of "presentational", "appearance", "style" and  
"content" that you are using seem to different from the meanings that  
the W3C, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the rest the world use.  
this is proving to be a barrier to this discussion.

>>>>>>>>> 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 ?
>>>>> What is the third way, about which you are speaking ?
> DD> there are other types of selectors in CSS, so a selector can be
> DD> written to match an element without creating a class.
>
> I said, that eigther redundant 'style=',
> or unique class for unique place.
> You are objecting me, but don't explain by what.

I have explained what, in simple terms, in different ways, and with  
reference to the relevant bits of the specifications. If you still  
can't grasp it, then I'm going to give up trying to explain.


-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 17:29:50 GMT

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