- From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:58:20 +0200
- To: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:18:08 +0300, you wrote:
>That would instantly bring up the need of authors to define alternative
>style of rendering in case of a specific @exclude (or any syntax). Even
>then, an author will have to do some serious thinking on style
>combinations. If I have a red background with a red border and the
>@exclude encountered doesn't like the background, maybe my alternative
>blue background will work but it will not look good with the red border.
>Just an example but you get the point.
And a good point too.
Why is it so totally impossible to try to keep CSS simple?
Why is it required that CSS must be "massaged" over and over again into
some new spec, when we are all still suffering from two specs that, none
of them, have been implemented correctly anywhere?
Why was there never an attempt made to create a CSS2.1 which could have
formed a well discussed, pretty much error free, good and reliable,
foundation for whatever future that CSS might have needed.
CSS3 stinks, am I the only one to think in those terms?
--
Rex [It's a crying shame that CSS, designed to be so easily accessible
to non programmers, has turned into such a cabbalists affair.
=== Todd Fahrner ===]
Received on Sunday, 19 August 2001 19:04:54 UTC