- From: Ian S. Graham <igraham@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 10:32:43 EDT
- To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) (Paul Prescod)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
> > At 12:47 PM 7/26/95 -0600, Benjamin C. W. Sittler wrote: > >I realize that CLASS is not just for stylesheets, but are we going to > >build a library of CLASS names with suggested meanings (and some suggested > >renderings)? If so, then I would use CLASS, but this hasn't been done so > >far as I know... > > I think that it would be premature to standardize CLASSes until we see what > people want to do with them. > > But Benjamin's concern is valid and common. Others are expressing it in > various HTML forums. They want their CLASSed text to be visually > differentiated ASAP. New browsers are coming out every month, but they are > no closer to differentiating between CLASSes of text, because they are > waiting for style sheets. Therefore people use HTML as presentation markup > and say they will change to style sheets "when they come out." Designing and > implementing a good style sheet language takes time, but people are impatient. > > Proposal > ======== > I suggest we develop a transitional style sheet format while we work out the > "real thing." We can call it "W3C Style Sheets version 0.5" or perhaps > "W3C Interm Style Sheet format" to indicate that something better is coming. > Alternately, we might want to keep style sheet version numbers in line with > HTML version numbers for simplicity. Everyone knows that HTML 3.0 is > coming, so they would assume that HTML 3.0 "style sheets" are coming too. > .................... > > There are other benefits. I believe it would: > > slow the creation of "tomorrow's legacy documents." > dispell the myth that the HTML WG is "against" presentation. > encourage the usage of CLASS, which would contribute to its usage in > robots and other software. > allow us to judge how people use CLASS so that we can think about > standardizing some usages. > increase the awareness of platform portability issues. > put the IETF and W3C back in the driver's seat with respect to the > direction of HTML and the Web. > > > Comments? Ideas? Should I present a more technical specification? I would > imagine the language would be a touched-up subset of the current CSS proposal. > > Paul Prescod I am not sure that all the 'benefits' would arrive as Paul hopes, but I agree strongly with the need for a properly specified, expansible, stylesheet language. The CSS stuff looks very good to me, since it is both easy to understand and use. Question -- how many browser implementors are/will be interested in integrating a basic CSS? Ian
Received on Thursday, 27 July 1995 10:32:58 UTC