Re: Liaison with CSS WG to provide a mechanism for expressing the style of document semantics

Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:

> Sometimes what appears hilarious (or depressing)
> to one individual can appear (prima facie) perfectly
> reasonable to others.

Last time I heard that argument, the topic was XHTML 2.0.
"Reasonable to some" and "globally counter-productive" are
not exclusive notions.

> Would it be possible for you
> to explain exactly what it is about the document's
> content that drives you to such extremes ?

Justin phrased it perfectly in a previous message :

> Looking at this, I am curious as to why in the world, after 10 years of
> begging people to separate their styling from their semantics, we would then
> turn around and make a mechanism that allows people to embed content and
> semantics (in this case, putting a string with a legend text is certainly a
> form of content) into the style sheet. This really looks like a massive step
> backwards. In this case, people should be using a tag in HTML with a *role*
> of "legend" (and another attribute indicating the ID of the tag that it is
> the legend of), with a stylesheet to style the legend itself. The legend
> text does not belong in a *style* definition.

If you except the fact it's not 10 years but 20, I couldn't agree more.

</Daniel>

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 09:48:23 UTC