- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:12:49 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 10/3/05, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > > Actually, no. If you factor in the need for separation of presentation > > from content, you have the best argument against preserving presentation > > in copy & paste operations, which, IMHO, should never be done by editors > > under any circumstances; or at least not by default, as is unfortunately > > Lachlan, that is so far from customers' needs that it is, sorry to say, > shocking to read that almost 15 years ago after we hit the problem with > Grif... > > You are thinking markup editors, I am thinking wysiwyg markup editors. There > is not a single reason on earth why, if you do wysiwyg editing, you should > not allow the user to copy styles too. Of course, you should allow the user > to "reset" styles after pasting if he/she wants/needs to, but that's trivial to > implement. > > A document _is_ structure + presentation. Why should a user action preserve > only the first part of it? I think this has to do with the multiple parts of presentation. Presentation that delivers semantics; e.g. italics, bold and all caps for emphasis. Presentation that improves scanability and readability; e.g. bolded, larger headings, font-selection. And presentation that delivers asthetics; e.g. color selection, lines and images. This last category is often very hard to identify. So really, what presentation are we talking about preserving? -- Orion Adrian
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 13:12:53 UTC