- From: Daniel Schierbeck <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:40:29 +0100
- To: Chris Sullins <theazureshadow@gmail.com>
- CC: Paul Mitchell <paul@paul-mitchell.me.uk>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Chris Sullins wrote:
> In my opinion, "style" makes perfect sense.
I'm not sure I agree. I do not speak English natively, so I may be wrong
about this. I see "style" simply as colors and fonts etc. - what about
animations? I'd much prefer "presentation", which in my mind covers more
ground.
<xml:presentation type="text/css">
<![CDATA[
body { background-color: #ABC; }
]]>
</xml:presentation>
<xml:presentation type="...">
... random animation language ...
</xml:presentation>
This is of course not necessary for XML technologies such as SMIL,
simply because they can be directly embedded into the document using
namespaces, but I can imagine that somewhere down the road there'll be a
need for a different approach to animations.
Cheers,
Daniel Schierbeck
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2006 12:40:15 UTC