- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:05:41 +0100
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- CC: HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
Fine, thank you, understood. A previous correspondent had referred to the (un)desirability of using "Jesus' words" as an example, and I just wondered whether it was this part that was the cause of your concern or whether you were (as you are, in fact) focussing on more substantive issues. As it turns out, I share some of your concerns, but knowing the motivation of those involved, I am less inclined to dismiss the proposal out of hand and more inclined to debate its merits (or otherwise) with its proposers. Philip TAYLOR Daniel Glazman wrote: >> 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. <etc />
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 10:06:21 UTC