- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@operasoftware.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:07:13 +0200 (Europe de l'Ouest (Heure d'été))
- To: www-style@w3.org
I'm running late on this one, but here's my reply:
> Can you please all answer to the 3 following questions (mark answer with X)?
>
> YES NO QUESTION
>
> [ ] [x] Should CSS and Behavioral Extensions be mergeable in a
> single file, from a web author's perspective ?
> [ ] [x] Should CSS and Behavioral Extensions be mergeable in a
> single file, from a developer's perspective ?
> [ ] [x] Should the text/css mimetype be used for CSS and BECSS ?
(CSS should continue to use "text/css", however)
> [x] [ ] Should we propose instead a new mimetype and a new rel/rev value ?
>
> Comments and explanations :
The distiction between presentation and user interface is somewhat
blurry and I support experiments in the field -- :hover is a good
example. I think, however, that all new proposals for CSS should be
declarative; adding executable code to content labeled as "text/css"
(which is proposed by [1]) is too much of a break with the past. For
example, the last line of CSS1 [2] -- before Appendix A -- states:
We do not expect CSS to evolve into:
a programming language
The RFC [1] which describes the "text/css" content type says, under
"Security considerations":
CSS style sheets consist of declarative property/value pairs
assigned to element selectors. They contain no executable code.
I do not think it is prudent to remove the "no" in the last sentence
at this point.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-becss-19990804
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1
[3] http://sunsite.auc.dk/RFC/rfc/rfc2318.html
I believe it's in everyone's long term interest -- including web
designers -- that executable code is kept out of CSS.
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie http://www.opera.com/people/howcome
howcome@opera.com gets you there faster
Received on Sunday, 24 October 1999 16:17:58 UTC