- From: Sean Palmer <wapdesign@wapdesign.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:21:55 +0100
- To: "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
> Are you sure you're not confusing style with content? > The XHTML document takes care of content as well as structure. See my next message. > I think I see what you're doing. There's two possibilities > here, though: > 1. you delete some links > 2. you change the links > > For 1--as you proposed, > > allow-skip: true; > > is fine. You don't really need "alternate content" for that. > (I think 'play' is redundant with 'display' and 'allow-skip') I have decided to skip the 'alt' property idea. It was a bad idea in the first place. Play is possibly redundant. But I think it implies something more subtle than "skip", which can then be addressed by UAs. > To configure the prompt, maybe you could use > allow-skip: true; > prompt-skip: [string]; > > where the UA could say something like "Skip [string]?" > And just to make things easy, you could have a shorthand: > > skip: true [string]; Actually I re-proposed. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2000Oct/0149.html But I changed my mind again! How about:- skip: provide [string], allow or prompt [string] or bypass [string] or bypass-prompt [string] Yes, that's better! See how I work out things on the go? But I'm not sure how your idea would conflict with the content: property... Following a similar kind of syntax? > For 2, well, it does /not/ belong in CSS. You're changing > the content, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with > the style in which it is presented. O.K. > | Yes, but what about an alt for ASCII art of something? They can't have alt > | properties... > Then propose something to the HTML WG. That sort of thing is > the domain of the markup language. Anyway, how is the browser > to know whether it's processing ASCII art as opposed to text > unless you /mark/ it as such? I'll give it a go with the HTML WG..................... Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 18:24:29 UTC