- From: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:30:44 -0400
- To: Wolfgang Rieger <rieger@bse.de>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Wolfgang Rieger wrote:
>.. snip ..
> There is the implementor side. What about the user/Web author side?
But it reflects the other side as you state below:
> Suppose you were a Web author ready to write style sheets in CSS,
> DSSSL-O and DSSSL. There would be browsers supporting
>
> - no style sheets
> - CSS only
> - DSSSL-O only
> - DSSSL
> - CSS and DSSSL-O
> - CSS and DSSSL
>
> What would you do?
This is exactly the problem, what *would* you do? The fundamental
choice is between CSS and DSSSL. DSSSL-O at least appears to be a
proper subset of DSSSL, if it isn't, then that is a serious error.
So the real choices are:
None
CSS
DSSSL(-O)
CSS and DSSSL(-O)
What I would want as both an implementor and a web author is some style
sheet language which fit naturally within the syntax of HTML. I would
probably not be happy with DSSSL having a lisp syntax (although I
haven't any problems with it myself). Why can't a style sheet look more
like:
<STYLE CLASS=ABSTRACT.PARAGRAPH
SPACE-BEFORE="10 POINTS"
SPACE-AFTER="20 POINTS"
START-INDENT="5 EN"
KEEP-WITH-PREVIOUS>
What is the necessity to set the style declarations off in something
which requires a separate lexer and parser? You could still store
the entire style sheet in a URL and load it once per. set of pages
which use the particular style sheet.
I must be missing something in this debate.
Doug
--
Doug Rand <drand@sgi.com> (508) 567 - 2217
Silicon Graphics http://reality.sgi.com/employees/drand
Digital Media Systems User Interface Technology
Disclaimer: You think *I'm* opinionated?
Received on Friday, 26 April 1996 10:29:32 UTC