RE: Should we adapt WYSIWYG in CSS?

Hi,

I'm afraid I've only been half-following this thread, but the last message
seems to imply that W3.org is some form of internet police - rather than a
standards organisation that people can follow and work with if they choose.

In particular point 6 - the W3 doesn't "control" people's use of the web, it
makes recommendations. When implementors think the recommendations are worth
using, they use them.

There's nothing to stop people creating their own recommendations, or
extensions to the W3 ones (so long as they follow interoperability
constraints).

If I've got the wrong impression about your email, I apologise - it just
seemed to object to non-problems.

Cheers,
Dave.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: GS [mailto:junkmail.gs@c2i.net]
> Sent: 21 February 2003 12:33
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Should we adapt WYSIWYG in CSS?
> 
> 
> 
> Should we adapt WYSIWYG philosopy in CSS?
> (related to the thread: Length unit relative to media-width) 
> 
> Here is some reasons for:
>  
> 1) Current use of the web. 
> I guess that as much as 30% , 
> or more of all webpages might be better served
> if the standards adapts here. 
>  
> 2) It can be done easily. 
> I think that a reference property is sufficient, if 
> implemented correct
> Something like this:
> reference-type:          screen-width  | client-width | none 
> reference-size:          <pixels>    /*  designers screen width */
> referenze-minimum: <pixels>    /*  prevents ambigeous small scale*/
> reference -width:      <mm>       /*  designers screen width in mm */
> 
> 3) Who should decide?
> Should the CSS standard forbid what people wants to use?
> I think that the webpage autor should be more respected. 
> You must have in sight that the need for a WYSIWYG approach is high.
>  
> 4) There is no really drawback
> The old philosophy can still be used.
> I also think that such an adaption will not spoil anyting. 
> It actually makes the content oriented design easier.
>  
> 5) Standards must adapt or die.
> I think that W3C must adapt to changes in actual use. 
> If not, the standards will become irrelevant.
> The historical web as an information library only, is outdated.  
>  
> 6) Freedom of speech
> You should not try to control how people use the web.
> The web has made it easy for everyone to express opinions, 
> or make their artwork public. 
> Let the designer choose the design philosophy of his document.
> It is his "right" to do it "wrong".
>  
> 7) Avoid messed up use of  html/css
> The css standards job is to let the designer be able to
> do it "right" or "wrong" in a logical, consistent and correct way.
>  
> 8) Adapts better to context philosophy
> Content is much more than text. Text and style is closely connected. 
> The word context describes this relationship. 
> 
> 
> Do you agree or disagree?
> Is there other good reasons for?
> Is there ANY good  reasons AGAIST?
> 
>  
> Gaute Sandvik
> 
>

Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 07:48:21 UTC