- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:20:17 +1100
- To: Wingnut <wingnut@winternet.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Wingnut wrote: > > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > <snip/> >> >> You have to remember that CSS is not only for XHTML, it's for any >> kind of XML document, so even in the unlikely event that your OTMB is >> added to XHTML, CSS must not change so drastically because of it. > > I can see your point, but in the same breath, we must not let CSS become > solidified beyond change ideas... just because its being used by > multiple applications. True, but this is not the www-style list, it's www-html, so CSS changes shouldn't be discussed here anyway. > In most folks' logic, border is "an adornment" > that could be labeled as content OR presentational. And using that same > logic, an oval/circular border deserves to be right next to the square > border. And so does underline and overline (partial borders). Then, so > does triangle border,... No, borders, or underlines, etc. are presentational, but what they are representing /may/ be semantic. For example, when a wiggly, red underline is drawn underneath a word, it usually indicates incorrect spelling. The wiggly red underline is the presentation, but the indication of a misspelt word is the semantics. The presentation could infact be anything, so long as the reader understood that presentation correctly. It is only by convention that a wiggly red underline is used. You need to stop thinking and talking about the types of shapes and lines that are being drawn, and think about what these shapes and lines represent or indicate. That way, you may come up with some useful, non-presentational elements for XHTML, or maybe some other XML based language. CYA ...Lachy!
Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 02:34:45 UTC