- From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 01:28:52 -0400
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
Daniel Glazman wrote:
> 1. using colloquial english like "to muck up" makes your point
> difficult to understand w/o a dictionnary for non-english locutors. I
> had to use a dictionnary.
Sorry.[1] But you got me back -- I couldn't find "locutor"[2] even in the
dictionary...
> 2. BECSS do not add scripting facilities to CSS itself ...
According to the section on script blocks[3] it does:
@script {
var count = 0;
function checkCount() {
if (document.getElementsById("radio").value == "add") {
count++;
}
else {
count--;
}
}
}
Do we really want to formally allow this kind of stuff inside a CSS
stylesheet??? I know I'm not the only one having a hard time buying into this.
A Javascript-capable web developer I was speaking with the other day put it this
way: "Aren't there enough important issues to keep them busy so they don't have
to obfuscate style with script just to preverve our job security?"
:)
/Jelks
[1] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?muck%20up
[2] http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?locutor
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/becss#scriptblock
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 01:30:37 UTC