- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 09:33:31 -0700
- To: "Paul Prescod" <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Paul Prescod > I don't understand the benefit of cascading over parameterization. With > parameterization the person in the central design office says exactly > what can be changed and the departments supply "stubs" that do the > changing. With the cascade, they can change whatever they feel like. I don't find the idea of a central authority laying down styling rules and then demanding "stubs" from hapless department managers appealing or efficient. And I don't see stylistic anarchy as a side effect of CSS. In a benevolent organization, departments would have a say in the graphical personalization of their documents and stylistic compliance would be by mutual consent. In a fascist bureaucracy, compliance could be assured by fear of termination or denial of tenure. In either case, the stylesheet is not directly accessible to everyone in the organization. Documents authored within a department could have the departmental stylesheet linked secondary to the organization's main stylesheet, or the main stylesheet could be an '@import' in the departmental. Department-specific headers with logo or other images could be in a server-side include. Seems simpler to manage and no less controllable than parameter-passing to activate a program stub. David Perrell
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 1997 12:36:42 UTC