- From: Matt Patterson <list-matt@reprocessed.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:49:05 +0100
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/7/02, Patrick Andries wrote: > my position : terseness is a virtue for manually produced > stylesheets, I believe more and more are automatically produced. Sorry to jump back to this point in the thread - I've been too busy to write a reply until now. I don't believe that more and more will be automatically produced. My experience of tools which generate CSS is that they simply don't provide the flexibility of expression that writing CSS by hand allows. I think that parallels can be drawn between CSS and the kinds of typographic specifications (instructions from the typographer to the printer) which existed before DTP. Specifications were natural language documents, which allowed them enormous flexibility in addressing strange situations, for example 'if a B head occurs immediately after an A head, reduce the space between them to 5pt'. Such generalised descriptions are still beyond all the DTP packages, but with contextual selectors they become possible. (for more on this read my dissertation, online at http://reprocessed.org/writings/essays/dissertation.html) It is becoming possible to describe presentation in terms of the relationships between graphic elements, which much more closely reflects the design process than does the concrete presentation descriptions in DTP, because of contextual selectors. The complexity that these selectors allow is immense. This is why I think that, especially with typographically complex documents, hand-written CSS will remain. Because the syntax of CSS parallels the syntax of specifications people are likely, I think, to find that writing CSS manually fits much more closely with writing specifications. People's process for such things differ, as do the writing styles in CSS (you only have to examine the CSS from a selection of sites to see this), and writing it yourself is the best way to accommodate your process. GUI (or whatever) tools for CSS will never really provide the same qualities that hand-written CSS possesses. As a designer, CSS is something I can understand - it makes sense to me. None of the CSS writing tools I've used thus far make any sense to me at all. Personally, if CSS were expressed as XML I think that it wouldn't mean anything to me (i.e. comprehension), and I'd have a very hard time with it, as I do with XSL-FO. Hope that had some relevance to someone... Regards Matt Patterson -- Matt Patterson | Typographer <matt@emdash.co.uk> | http://www.emdash.co.uk/ <matt@reprocessed.org> | http://reprocessed.org/
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 09:54:00 UTC