- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:24:23 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24591 --- Comment #22 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- I would like to add that I do disagree with Mike’s outset for this bug - namely the message about CSS: 1) We ought to be past that point were we need to ”drive home” the message about using CSS rather than formatting directly on the element. a) Because everyone and their cat have gotten that message - e.g. those that ”sin” by using e.g. border=1 (if you view that as a presentational feature) also use lots of CSS. Google does, as well, both in google.com and Google Docs. b) Because the presence of the @style attribute is a conforming loop hole that allows you to specify things on the very element anyhow (except that using @style often is often more cumbersome - e.g. try to replicate table@border=1 by the use of @style!) And, in fact, I have seen some HTML5-capable WYSIWYG editors/generators which places inside @style what they used to place in attributes - the result is the same, the method is (slightly) different, with the negative effect - sometimes - that semantical info is removed. 2) To look squarely at a HTML feature with the aim of removing ”presentational hints”, without regard for whether the HTML feature is complex or simple, is flawed logic. Claim: Complex HTML features require attributes. For SVG, there is no proposal, I think, to replace attributes with CSS. SVG is of course often complex, so it might be easy to accept. But even HTML features can be complex. And so, when the use of complex HTML features can be simplified by replacing CSS with a feature that is (both) a presentational (*and* sometimes also a semantic) hint, then why discourage its use. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 23:24:25 UTC