- From: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@der.edfgdf.fr>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:53:51 +0100 (MET)
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Cc: howcome@opera.com
> property-value pairs, it is just that the values this time are in a > language that can be executed. (Typically, ECMAScript.) And that's what frigtens our dear Haakon... The Web is full of docume nts containing scripts that can be executed - including by Opera - but it does not turn html into a programming language. So I don't really see, even we discussed that a lot of times, what could potentially make CSS a programming language here. > CSS itself is still not a programming language. I totally agree with that. > Executable code already appears in HTML. Moving it to CSS adds no > security problems that are not present already, but makes the life of > web authors significantly simpler. ditto. > What does anyone gain by forcing the > > user-select: text; > > ...and > > onBlur: "validateData()"; > > ...to be in different files? Complexity for web authors. I think we are running into a really religious war. Some of us, with a very practical view of the web, see benefits in a becss mechanism. Some others, with a very ideal and pure view of the web, see dangers. Our actual arguments are not going to convince Haakon and Haakon's counter-arguments seem irrelevant to me. [ nothing personal, Haakon... I just believe you are completely wrong ] </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 1999 04:54:06 UTC