- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:49:30 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Tom Broxton wrote: > Given that the descussion was regarding the default style sheet of for > screen based media, I think it is relevant and important that UA > authors are encouraged to display web pages in such a way that they > have a generally consistent user-interface. I think we are discussing sample style sheets in general. And although aural properties are practically irrelevant at present, the existing sample style sheets are not limited to screen media. There's nothing in them that says that they would not apply to print media too, for example; in fact they have some specific rules for print media only. Do you really mean user interface, or do you actually mean document rendering? They are quite different things. And would the consistency, whatever that means in detail, be important to users or to authors? For which reasons? > We should not wish for > a world in which the default rendering for a page was an uninterrupted > stream of text with no distinction for headings, paragraphs or > hyperlinks. But does this mean that a specification needs to contain an appendix of obscure status, saying that <ul> elements have 40 pixels left indentation? > It may well be that allot of the conventions that we have settled are > merely based on the way Mosaic did it, I think the web would be allot > less popular if each subsequent UA author had gone their own way on how > to display a page of information. Would it? Would it really have spoiled the Web, or would it spoil the Web, if browsers by default applied some decent typographic rules? Did the Web crash when the default background color was changed from gray to white? (Actually, the sample style sheet in CSS1 has body {background: white}. I don't think this contributed much to the change, but if it is important to have consistent default rendering, why hasn't CSS2 sample style sheet have anything about background color?) > It makes sense that headings are more prominent than body text and that > there is some consistency in the way that hyperlinks are displayed on > they web. Surely. But that relates to the general principles, not specific styling, and it should be said in HTML specifications. Surely the principles should apply when no CSS is used - they should apply even stronger, when no style sheets are in use, and a browser just renders a document by fixed rules. Besides, the sample style sheets violate the specific principles you mention. In the CSS1 sample h5 and h6 were set to font sizes smaller than copy texts, and CSS2 is even worse for h6, font-size: .67em. (Bolding _may_ affect the rendering. But 67% of basic font size still does not make text more prominent than normal text. Regarding links, colors are probably the most important presentational feature in most browsers, and underlining comes next. The CSS2 sample style sheet says nothing about link colors. This is perhaps better than in CSS1, which sets visited links red and active links lime - luckily browser vendors ignored this recommendation. > The sample stylesheets are a way of describing this status quo. They don't actually describe any status quo (except in some details), and there's no reason to recommend preserving the status quo. Regarding descriptions of browser behavior, they would be useful, but such things hardly belong to specifications even as appendices, especially since the target is moving fast. Besides, browser style sheets should be published (and preferably documented by explaining the decisions) by browser vendors, instead of being reverse engineered. I recently compared, in detail, the sample style sheets in the CSS1 and CSS2 specifications and the CSS 2.1 draft. And I can say that they are inconsistent with each other, and they neither describe actual browser behavior nor serve as good examples - as a whole. They are still useful reading _to a very critical mind_ (or if explained critically), since they partly make explicit some browser features, partly show what oddities browser default style sheets _might_ contain. But they should become history now. If there are some rendering features that should be recommended to be implemented in browsers by default, they should be given in HTML specifications, not CSS. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 14:49:32 UTC