Re: css layout should be symmetrical

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> I guess a lot of current problems with CSS caused by the fact that people who
> were designing CSS had no Desktop Publishing (and traditional Publishing)
> expereince.

Why do you think that?  I think the current CSS box model is far too
biased towards traditional publishing and desktop publishing relative to
its support for layout of user interfaces (although there are some
parts, like the inline box model, that are a bit unusual).  There are
also a number of good reasons why a standard for the Web should differ
from traditional publishing.  Among them, a web standard needs to allow
for device-independence and interaction of author and user preferences.

> I am subscribed to this list more than an year: and still surprised that
> there are no postings from Adobe, Quark, Macromedia, Xerox, Canon, etc. guys.
> (not to mention producers of traditional offset presses, or new *all-digital*
> machines)
> It seems those companies tend to ignore current CSS developement.

That's not a logical conclusion.  Some active members of the working
group don't post much on www-style.  (I've been guilty of that at some
points since I became an Invited Expert -- I often don't have enough
time to keep track of more than a handful of lists at once, or any at
all.)  Did you read:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-selectors-20011113/#ACKS

However, I also wonder why you think all of these companies *should* be
paying attention to CSS development.  After all, CSS is a standard for
the *Web*, and some of these companies aren't (as far as I know) working
on Web authoring tools or user-agents.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron        <URL: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/ >

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 11:38:51 UTC