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

Re[28]: css with attribues [off-topic]

From: Dmitry Turin <sql4-en@narod.ru>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:11:40 +0200
Message-ID: <1994743578.20080124121140@narod.ru>
To: www-style@w3.org


>>>>>>>>>> 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 not determined by where you put it.
>> Not 'where', but 'how much time'.
DD> The time it takes to turn a background blue doesn't change that a
DD> blue background is a matter of presentation.

Color of background is other mental category, than text
(including background text).

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

I agree with you, that language of documents should be moved into CAS.

>>>>>>>>>> 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 definitions of "presentational", "appearance", "style" and
DD> "content" that you are using seem to different from the meanings that
DD> the W3C, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the rest the world use.

I admit, that any classification, used now, can be wrong
(previous centuries give similar examples).

P.S. This definitions are not bound with existance of XSL.

Dmitry Turin
SQL5      (5.10.0)  http://sql50.euro.ru
HTML6     (6. 5.2)  http://html60.euro.ru
Unicode7  (7. 2.1)  http://unicode70.euro.ru
Computer2 (2. 0.2)  http://computer20.euro.ru
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:14:19 UTC

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