Re: CSS aims

On 1/23/14 2:18 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
> One of us is clearly talking past the other.  You keep attributing
> something to me which I feel is the opposite of what I've said.
> Please describe to me what you think is the decades of experience and
> what that would mean to our way forward and how I am incorrectly
> labeling that purist?

The decades of experience that you dismiss as "purist" is the:

> "purist notion that there is a very important difference and that
> presentation should be the realm of CSS."

It's not just an abstract principle - it's something that's done well 
for a long time.

Then you ask for:

> when I need boxes and relationships that aren't in the DOM

I suggest that you're asking for the wrong thing.  Boxes - certainly as 
expressed in the regions spec - may seem like what you need.  However, 
the shortcuts that spec takes in its rush to get there will cut you 
badly in the long run.  Relationships that aren't in the DOM are more 
complicated, but standardizing those seems like the wrong path.

At least that's what my experience makes painfully clear, and I have too 
many scars from past cuts to demonstrate it.

I hope that's clear enough.

Thanks,
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 20:32:35 UTC