- From: Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:35:30 -0800
- To: David Seibert <seibert@hep.physics.mcgill.ca>, Glenn Adams <glenn@stonehand.com>
- Cc: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>, www-style@w3.org
At 4:15p 12/06/95, David Seibert wrote: >On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 19:56:00 +0100 >> From: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr> >> >> 2. No style properties in attributes (STYLE="...") >> >> The argument for (2) is that it leads to bad design. It may also be a >> little bit less efficient for future sophisticated browsers. But some >> people want this facility, so I guess we just have to accept this in >> HTML. >> >> It seems to me that IETF WGs work on a consensus basis. I don't believe >> there is a consensus on a STYLE attribute. Some people oppose it quite >> strongly. Therefore, it should be removed. "Some people want this" doesn't >> cut it! > >I agree with Glenn. Since the goal is to have HTML 3.0 be a "final" >version, it makes sense to include facilities for any type-setting >effect, no matter how few people want it. Thus, if allowing style >properties in attributes was necessary to achieve some effect, then it >would make sense to allow this no matter how many people didn't like it. >However, this is not a necessity but only a convenience, since the same >effect can also be obtained by pre-declaring elements of different >classes, so there is no strong argument for allowing it. I do all my web authoring by hand in a drag&drop text editor, using stuff like <font size=+2><B><I>xxx</I></B></font>. I would GLADLY switch to something like <SPAN STYLE="subhead2">xxx</SPAN> with "subhead2" previously defined. For those places where direct formatting is needed, we already have <B>, <I>, <STRONG>, and <EM>. Anything more complex than that is best defined as a style (class, whatever) anyway. I definitely want the ability to have one <H2> look one way and another <H2> look another way in the same document. I definitely do NOT want a <H2 STYLE="font: Helvetica"> type of tag. Why use STYLE as the name of the attribute instead of CLASS? Because it matches the <STYLE> element in the HEAD. It makes no sense to use CLASS instead, unless you have <CLASS> in the HEAD. In a word: Consistency. (Should I be telling html-wg this? I don't know who I'm preaching to here!;) -Walter __________________________________________________________________________ Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com> | Excel | FoxPro | AppleScript | Mountain View, CA |--------- programmer ---------| http://www.natural-innovations.com/ | Macintosh | Windows |
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 1995 17:37:30 UTC