- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:45:52 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 9/10/05, White Lynx <whitelynx@operamail.com> wrote: > > > (X)HTML is for content, CSS is for presentation. Wouldn't > the generation of links be more of an XSLT issue? > > How about 'blockquote' example? There XHTML was used for content and *user* CSS controlled how link should be represented. XSLT can not replace user CSS. > As to document style sheet, here one can claim that selectors and generated content can be replaced with XSLT, formatting oriented properties can be replaced with XSL FO and links can be replaced with XLink. But are not we talking about CSS, and requirement of CSS users? We don't ask to create link somehow, we are asking for convenient and flexible control over represantation of hyperlinks, similar to Opera's and Prince's linking extensions. How about this is going so far into the land of interaction design that it's really not the place for it. Why must every document have it's own script library for me to access it? Shouldn't my browser be enough? Documents should expose thier content and enough metadata to make them useful. Authors should be able to specified default or preferred styling and the browser should take that content with it's metadata and do useful things with it. CSS is the not UI platform of HTML and it disturbs me to no end that few here speak up against HTML/CSS/Javascript becoming the next OS platform as in many ways I percieve them to be. I applaud the working groups from lettings this go to far, but I still see things as needing to be curbed in a bit. -- Orion Adrian
Received on Saturday, 10 September 2005 14:45:57 UTC