RE: SGML macros using DSSSL expressions -Reply

CSS is largely uniteligble.  It's C-like syntax is confusing to anyone who is unfamaialr with C.  The success of the web was and still is hinged on simplicity.

I know for a fact that most casual HTML authors I talk to are ignoring Java and CSS...they will continue to convert to the simpler Microsoft/Netscape methodology of page-layout markup tags and embedded scripting.  
This is what the people want....new features--not new syntax and new concepts.

However, the concept of CSS is essential...it's just the goofy implementation that concerns me as a viable extension to the web.

why not just use an INSERT tag to include a style definition....

<STYLE>
	<BODY BACKGROUND=#000000>
	<STYLE NAME=H2>
	<FONT SIZE=12 FACE=Times,Serif COLOR=#FFFFFF>
	</STYLE>
	<STYLE NAME=H3>
	<FONT SIZE=10 FACE=Times,Serif COLOR=#FFFFFF>
	</STYLE>
</STYLE>

or something equally silly

Also...about Microsoft and Netscape...

HTML authors are most often NOT skilled coders.  In fact, most of them can't figure out how to join a mailing list.

These companies are not "showing off", they are responging to demand in a competitive marketplace for features without complexity.  

W3's ideas will be left as a curious anachronism if they ignore the demands of the users.

Microsoft will own the web unless someone else plays their game better than they do.

----------
From: 	Charles Peyton Taylor
Sent: 	Thursday, February 29, 1996 3:23 AM
To: 	www-html@w3.org
Subject: 	Re: SGML macros using DSSSL expressions -Reply

>>> Erik Aronesty <erik@inch.com> 02/24/96 11:14pm >>>
<snipped text about complexity in HTML>
>microsofts use of font face and size...along 
>with other simple tags are enough for
>95% of the people.  We should focus on what 
>the people and the industries want.

I could agree with that if you only said "the 
industries" and if you limit that to only those
companies who make web software.  

I've wanted CSS style sheets for a while now, 
and I haven't seen anything by the larger browser
manufacturers promising to implement them now
or when they are finalized.  Oh, <banner> and 
<FIG>, too. [1]

Really, if a browser can do frames, why can't a 
browser can do <banner>?  If a browser can do 
<table> and <img>, a browser should be able to 
do <fig>.  Style sheets might take a little more 
processing, but hell, if you have <font> ...

I really believe the major browser companies 
(you know who I mean) add tags simply so that 
they can shout "hey, look what *WE* invented" 
and that they don't really care about implementing 
that which they didn't invent (unless the market 
forces them towards something like HTML 2.0 .)

>maybe i'm mad...but the CSS syntax is bad enough.  

I didn't find it so bad, except I kept confusing the 
old format with the new format.  The great thing about 
CSS (when used with a working browser) is that you only 
have to do everything *ONCE* for *ALL* your documents [2], 
and if you want to change things, you only need one line.

C  h a r l e s    P e y t o n   T a y l o r        
ctaylor@nps.navy.mil
The opinions and views expressed       ##  even though we're on our
own,
are my own and do not reflect          ##        we are never all
alone,
Those of the Naval PostGraduate School ##  when we are singing,
singing.
               http://www.nps.navy.mil/personal/charles.taylor/

[1]  I thought this would be a good place to mention 
<fn> (footnotes).
[2]  you do have to add the link in the <head> of each 
document, but thats a simple cut-and-paste.

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 1996 18:15:09 UTC