RE: New Working Draft : BECSS

Chris Wilson wrote:

> There are quite a few problems with using BECSS as a separate linking
> mechanism.  The first, of course, is that there is NO standard provision for
> linking them into the document.  We would, in essence, end up having to use

Looking at the <!ATTLIST LINK ...> declaration in the [x]HTML DTDs shows that
REL has a content of CDATA, there's nothing that says it has to be STYLESHEET.
Why not <link rel="behaviors" type="text/becss" href="foo.becss"> or some such?

> and embedded STYLE elements to link these in - or
> come up with some new elements, which is a difficult thing to do at this
> stage with any hope of interoperability.

What does that mean?  *Nothing* new will work on older browsers.  Including
BECSS.  And BECSS will only be "interoperable" going forward because MS and NS
have decided to make it so.  It could be equally interoperable using other

> Come on, you really can't use the argument that you want style and
> interactivity in separate documents, and then say we're making the wrong
> decision by componentizing.

I never said you're making the wrong decision by componentizing.  Just in regard
to throwing scripts and even event handlers into CSS files. It seems to me to be
a clear violation of cohesion in programming.

But OK, perhaps people *should* be given the wherewithall to write pachinko
style if they really want to. ...

> >It sure seems that the CSS part of BECSS is a short term hack that sounds
> >OK on the surface, but will prove as bad an idea as FONT was to markup.
> Now that's a cry of "Wolf! Wolf!" if I ever heard one.

It might as well be "Wolf! Wolf!" if BECSS is, as I suspect, a done deal.  And
having voiced enough, I'll now shut up.  :)


Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 01:43:06 UTC