W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: New layout language.

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:40:16 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105070707403851ab99@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 7/7/05, Kris@meridian-ds.com <Kris@meridian-ds.com> wrote:
> OK Orion,
> Try 2:
> I design websites all the time.  And your ideas are not popular with me.
> If I (and people like me) are not your target audience then your ideas are
> misdirected.  You say that we (the people subscribed to this discussion)
> are incapable of really being impartial about this discussion, yet most of
> us use the product being discussed every day.  If we can't see a benefit,
> then chances are you're barking up the wrong tree.

The syntax may not be, but the math is sound and avoids the overlap
problem that occurs with current CSS. It's machine friendly and
deterministic and it takes about 30 minutes to code up for UA
implementors. All of that said, I don't care what the properties look
like. I think you think I'm stuck on width and widthGrowth and
percentages. I'm not. Just because the underlying model works a
certain way doesn't mean that we should expose it.

As far as the syntax goes, anything goes. I'm not just talking about
names, lines and punctuation. You could come at this from any number
of directions. All I'm saying is that the math is sound and it solves
at least one problem that you yourself said you had and it does it by
reducing complexity of the underlying model instead of increasing it.
> Ultimately though your statement there is just your excuse to continue
> pounding away on what most of us find to be rather pointless.

I wasn't pounding away to get the thing implemented. I was pounding
away to get the thing understood. Quite a feat without pictures. Based
on feedback I felt the mathematics were being dismissed without a firm
understanding of them. People said it wouldn't work. It did work. I
even provided code.
> Concerning the layout mechanics of CSS.  Current mechanics may not be
> optimal in your view, but they will, in all likeliness, work increadibly
> similar to what you've describe in the near future.  So to me, this issue
> is solved, and should be dropped.

Calc may be the syntax for what I'm proposing. I don't care.

> As far as seperation of formatting and layout... let's talk about it for a
> minute.
> As I see it, classes are very adept for formatting, ids for layout.  You've
> said as much yourself.  So assume for a moment the following:
> I set up a text format:
> .class1 {
>   color:#0000ff;
>   font-weight:bold;
> }
> And I want it applied to the text inside of this id
> #id1 {
>   position:absolute;
>   top:10px;
>   left:10px;
>   width:200px;
>   height:100px;
> }
> Currently I need to do this in the html:
> <div id="id1" class="class1"/>
> yes?  Which we'll all freely admit is more to maintain.  Whether it's worth
> it is up for grabs, but this is totally doable currently, you just don't
> see it much.
> What if we could do this instead?
> I have id1, and I wish class1 to apply to it on all pages.  Consistency and
> such.
> so I do thus:
> #id1 {
>   class:class1;
>   position:absolute;
>   top:10px;
>   left:10px;
>   width:200px;
>   height:100px;
> }
> Now technically my formatting shouldn't ever conflict with my layout...
> margins and padding could become semi-problematic in such a system, but
> perhaps a little seperation of naming conventions could fix that.  Now I've
> satisfied Orion's idea of seperating out my layout, I've given developers
> of websites more flexibility, and yeah... I wish I had a 3rd thing to say,
> but oh well.
> Thoughts???  Can we do this currently?  Am I off base here?

As I understand it, class is really sub-class. It's designed to say,
"Hey this paragraph is really a specific type of paragraph." Except
when used in divs and spans where it defines the class since div and
span are classless semantically.

You don't find my upper-left syntax preferable, but that's ok. I
wasn't trying to promote it. I don't know why I have to keep repeating
myself on this point.

As far as what you just proposed it flies even more in the face of
what I'm talking about. It's an even further integration of layout and

Again, this doesn't aid reusable content, the ability to move layout
to the device (where only it's needs can be known). It also doesn't
prevent total breakage since if I modify margins in text, there's a
decent chance I'm going to break the layout since !important overrides

I'm alright with being heard and dismissed. What I don't like it not
being partially heard and dismissed before true understanding happens.
I also don't like being called arrogant or ignorant. I appreciate the
appology from earlier though.


Orion Adrian
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 14:40:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:19 UTC