- From: lilley <lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:23:05 +0000 (GMT)
- To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, html-wg@oclc.org
Paul Prescod says: > When you are trying to move people to a new paradigm, you must make it > difficult to slip back into the old one. I would guess that that is why > SmallTalk and Java don't have functions, and why ANSI C has strong type > checking. Nice argument, I like it. I am thus somewhat baffled that Paul concludes: > The proposed STYLE attribute allows you to do your "red", "green", "blue" > thing and still serves this educational purpose. It seems like a good > compromise to me. Are you talking about the style attribute proposal where the value is a style name, or the one where it is allowed to contain arbitrary stylesheet declarations? Because the latter sounds very much like what you warn against: a) the old one: <h2 font+=2 face="garamond"> b) what lets you slip back: <h2 style="{font-size: 3; font-family: garamond}"> c) what makes it "difficult to slip back" or rather, what points the way forward: <h2 style="section-head"> or <h2 class="chapter title"> or whatever we end up calling this hook into stylesheets. I presume therefore that you are referring to the other proposal, where the style attribute takes a name only. -- Chris Lilley, Technical Author and JISC representative to W3C +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Manchester and North Training & Education Centre ( MAN T&EC ) | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Computer Graphics Unit, Email: Chris.Lilley@mcc.ac.uk | | Manchester Computing Centre, Voice: +44 161 275 6045 | | Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. Fax: +44 161 275 6040 | | M13 9PL BioMOO: ChrisL | | Timezone: UTC URI: http://info.mcc.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 14:24:28 UTC