- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:49:10 -0800
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:59 AM 12/18/00 -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>bullish on CSS
The use of "style sheets" at all is more of a leap for many authors than is
the move to a particular implementation thereof. Just the concept of having
a "presentation descriptor" is something many blindless people have trouble
with because of such prejudices as "seeing is believing" or "it's right
there in front of your eyes". Many of us just don't understand that there
is an underlying "what" that's somehow being re-presented. We have for so
long mistaken the medium for the message that it's a hard severance to
expect compliance with, as is evident from the long-raging exchanges herein.
CSS is sort of the "last best hope" for getting this done and my
"bullishness" on it is based mainly on the business case arguments for its
use. It is so clearly more efficient (once the initial bigotry towards it
is overcome) that it will be as "second-nature" of a thing for Web
designers (as it sort of already has been in print, where the word "style"
is frequently understood in the sense it is used in CSS) as it was for the
designers of SGML. People who wrote documents for UNIX traditionally had a
separate file that expressed the presentation of what had been captured as
what we call "content" in a text file.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 11:49:10 UTC