Re: Proposal for non-normative example section (Was: RE: How is it possible to devise such a feeble system?)

* Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>So nobody really understands the spec, even on this list.

*Please*, ask questions and propose clarifications if you think
something is not clear enough. Optimization for human consumption
is something the writer can hardly do without reader input.

>How much less likely is it that a beginning developer will
>understand it?

Specifications aren't generally written for users or authors
in this case. Someone who doesn't know how non-Latin writing
systems work or who isn't familiar with common typography is
likely to be confused by some parts of CSS Level 3, optimizing
for them is not feasable. Developers should refer to secondary
materials like tutorials, books, guides, whatever if they want
to learn CSS, specifications cannot teach authors to use
technologies described therin, at least not beyond a certain
level of verbosity.

>There should be a non-normative section of CSS3 (and CSS2.1) giving
>techniques for table-less layouts.

Go, write it, publish it, I and others will happily link to it. Why
should that be part of a specification?

>Two important cases are: the one
>discussed here, centering stuff vertically and horizontally; and 2- and
>3-column-based layouts.

Why is reading the column module text not sufficient to learn how to
setup column based layout? I think there was only one feedback thread
on the column module on this list.

>Then the editors of CSS will be able to see whether CSS is a feasible
>replacement for tables. If CSS requires much more code or harder-to-read
>code than a table-based layout, CSS needs to be reconsidered.

Help thinking, try it yourself, share your results.
Björn Höhrmann -- -- speaking for myself only
am Badedeich 7 -- -- unless stated otherwise.
25899 Dagebüll -- -- [Place your ads here!!!]

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 16:50:27 UTC