- From: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:17:34 -0400
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-style@w3.org
Tantek Çelik wrote: >That's the point. You can substitute "XML" or "UNICODE" into that sentence >as the "it" to see how little sense it makes as a generalization. In that case, I guess you were being just a little too pithy for my poor, practical head. > >>> XLST is intended >>>> for this sort of situation. >>> >>> This statement has two fundamental philosophical flaws. >>> >>> 1. The "one-tech" blinders. Just because there is one technology to do >>> something doesn't mean there shouldn't be another. >>> >>> 2. The fact that complex solutions beg for simpler solutions. >> >> Let's assume you are correct in both. Does this >> mean that it is your belief that CSS *should* >> allow authors to re-arrange document structure? > >That question assumes binary thinking. Well, yeah. The original question was, "[W]ould it make sense to allow authors to rearrange the structure of a document wit[h] CSS?" Maybe I'm just a literalist, but that sure looks like a yes/no question to me. You appeared to be arguing for "yes", so I asked you to clarify, as I found that surprising. >In answer to your question, no, because that would be assuming a false >dichotomy of CSS vs. anything else. I understand the "no" part, but you simply lose me with the rest of it. The reasoning you proffer has nothing to do with that simple "no" answer. The question doesn't assume any kind of dichotomy, but simply asks for an opinion about what CSS should or should not allow. I think you are just trying too hard. It really is a pretty simple question.... ...which you would apparently answer "no", after all. Perhaps we should leave it at that. -Adam
Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 23:17:42 UTC