Re: We are where we are.... but how did we get here?

Paul Duncan wrote:

<section removed>
> It very frustrating as someone who has to work with these standards every
> day. They are not intuitive and overly complex. I came here to try and
> understand.

For myself as well... and likely many others.  One thing I find I need 
to do often... in my hobby-hacking... is try to get the CURRENT COMPLETE 
STYLE SETTINGS from some html element in some webpage somewhere.  I work 
around "nodeserving"... where modified webservers (built-in content 
management systems) "transclude" html elements from webpages, and send 
out JUST the asked-for node/nodetree.  What I need, is the CMS/webserver 
to be able to "peek" the 122 CSS-1 stylerule properties FOR said 
transcluded node... and mail THAT out WITH the node.  But cascading 
stands in the way of this, I believe.  The CMS/webserver must actually 
render-up the doc in a dom-tree of its own, then do the "gathering" of 
the css properties FOR that node, then package THAT, and send it along 
with the node itself.

In brief... I could use...

get namespace.node.markup
get namespace.node.stylerule

and maybe...

get namespace.node

...automatically returns both... even with metadata maybe.

Does a 'stylerule query' such as this... retrieve the styles that apply 
to CHILDNODES under this top-node?  yep.  It has potential to return an 
xml doc that has tags/data for up to 122 css properties for EACH element 
within/beneath.  Hoggy, eh?

What I do in my time wasting, is haul around short articles written by 
colorful authors.  They don't mind me borrowing the comments from their 
webpage/webserver... but they'd like me to present it to MY readers... 
with the same LOOK (style) as THEY have used in its initial presentation.

So, I need webservers/content management systems that can deliver style 
goods as wanted... and if we don't want CMS's to grow dom trees each 
time a node is to be "translcuded with style"... then we have to say 
goodbye to cascading.

*shrug*  I'm more mouth than brain, as the folks on this list already 
know. :)  Just thought I'd comment.

<section removed>

> Regards
> Paul

Ya made my brain stir, Paul. Hope I didn't contaiminate the thread by 
subject wandering.  I've done yappings about box models as well, talking 
about making borders a "secondary layer" and thus they don't affect the 
battle between margins and paddings in box models.  I've talked of 
circular and u-shape-it box models, and the dreaded 8-url picture-border 
nightmare.  Box models are odd, 1920's like creatures, eh?  My group is 
into VRML and making simulated palm trees out of xml files, and navving 
via Huey helicopter.  These mired-in-unix kids 'round here got their 
cars stuck in Quakerville errr sumthin'. :)


Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 18:23:50 UTC