Re: Browsers will never get it right [was Re:Blocked-base parsing?]

On 9/15/05, Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:06:25 +0300, Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 9/15/05, Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:43:37 +0300, Orion Adrian
> >> <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> On: Re: Block-based parsing; allow lies
> >> Having the same exact DNA
> >> never could help any species, there has to be a flexibility for times
> >> when the need be.
> >
> > This argument makes so sense to me? Doesn't that mean we should be
> > abandoning standards since products based on them have the same DNA?
> > Doesn't that mean we should all start using different languages, built
> > uniquely for us, so we have different DNA? RSS has managed to remove
> > the issues of the past. I have yet to see an RSS feed that says, best
> > viewed in X. That's an issue only when you allow styling code to be
> > determined by the author.
> >
> 
> No, that's not what I meant. I am not claiming there are RSS feeds that
> say they prefer a specific app, what I meant is, ditching author's
> recommandations on presentation and author-provided functionality
> (HTML+CSS+Javascript) means that user will view all pages with their own
> UA's style, or his own style, using his UA's own functions. The site could
> not add anything to the table, and if needed a specific functionality,
> author would have to suggest using a specific UA, or provide his own UA.
> Every bit of detail would have to be described by the standard. There
> would not be any author-induced innovations in usage (e.g. yellow fade
> technique).

The site brings the content to the table. I find it interesting that
they also feel they need to write applications as well. I understand
the desire and the need in the early days and that given the benefits
of instant-update to all clients, people were a might impressed, but I
think we can get those benefits without HTML applications.

> But I always would like to see one thing: CSS being used for unlimited
> type of layouts without requiring specific markup. My pseudo-parent
> container suggestion could do just that even for existing web pages, tho
> the syntax could be much refined.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Apr/0058.html

Your suggestion issues some of the problems which revolve around
content being marked up for styling purposes and semantic ones. I
suggested removing the layout portion of CSS earlier which I consider
to be the primary root of the problem. It wasn't well recieved here.

> And after that is done, I'd like to see people using id's in similar
> manner, so user styles could do much more. (e.g. #footer, #header,
> #contentbody, .newsitem, etc.) Authors could adhere to a *recommendation*,
> and bearing a "I will let you style this page" banner. This is not the
> same as having the same DNA, but same kind of DNA.

This is consistency of communication and what you're describing is
very close to what I'm calling for since what you have above are
semantic classifications. Something can be a footer, a header or a
news item. I'm just suggesting they be codified somehow and
standardized. Once that's done it really wouldn't matter if CSS was
involved or not, but of course in our reality it does because if CSS
is available and if Javascript is available, people will want to use
them to create applications instead of content.

-- 

Orion Adrian

Received on Thursday, 15 September 2005 23:15:06 UTC