- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@stonehand.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 18:20:13 -0500
- To: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 16:53:35 -0600 From: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece) Because, as a potential consumer of the product, it "feels wrong" to me. Stylesheets feel right, but the inability to put information locally, when appropriate, feels wrong. Intuition, based on experience, tells me I will want to put my fingers where your restriction says I can't... That's the trouble. You are attempting language design based on your speculations about perceived needs. As I have said very early in these threads, one shouldn't design compromise into a language (or anything else) unless one had either good empirical data on hand or clear historical compability requirements. I don't believe that historical requirements can be invoked here so we're left with empirical requirements for which we have no real data. Given this fact (and I'd challenge anyone to effectively dispute this as a fact) and given that the STYLE attribute as has been discussed violates basic principles on at least two counts: (1) don't provide multiple ways of saying the same thing when one will suffice; and (2) don't mix form and content, I'd suggest that the authors of DRAFT-IETF-HTML-STYLE-00.TXT remove or modify their proposed use of a STYLE attribute as a binding mechanism. A modification which would be acceptable to me is to specify the declared value of the STYLE attribute to be either NAME or NAMES. Regards, Glenn Adams
Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 18:20:55 UTC