Re: Re[20]: css with attribues [software]

On 17 Jan 2008, at 13:18, Dmitry Turin wrote:
> DD> division between non-presentational HTML attributes that are  
> likely
> DD> to be reused (with the same values) across multiple documents on a
> DD> site and those which are not.
>
> i.e. you are agree to apply css for this mentioned reused attributes ?

No.

>>> I'm accepting your argument.
>>> Let attributes in css will be media-specific.
>>> I'm listen your objections for this variant.
> DD> that could reasonable change under different media types
>
>   Otherwise he will must remember, which characteristics
> (attributes-properties) spread from particular media to all media,
> and which are not.

Which just underlines the inappropriateness of CSS for your proposed  
feature.


>   Accepting media-specificity for attributes,
> author will specify for 'all' media.
>
>>> DD> "I am writing HTML, therefore I am entering content and
>>> describing its semantics".
>>> No (and presentation also).
> DD> No. Presentation has (mostly) ...
>
> "No" and "mostly" simultaneously ?

The mostly is only there due to left over cruft, the use of which is  
not recommended.

> DD> ... been stripped from HTML ...
>
> agreed
>
> DD> ... and the few
> DD> remaining bits of presentation are things, that best practice
> DD> recommendations say should be avoided.
>
> What is these things ? Please, list.

Anything presentational.


>>> DD> "I am writing CSS, therefore I am describing how the
>>> DD> semantics should be represented to the user".
>>> Yes, but with redundant 'style='.
> DD> Authors do not have to use style attributes (and generally  
> should not
> DD> use them).
>
> I.e. create unique class for unique place of site ?

There are various ways that selectors can be crafted to match  
elements. Classes might come into it.

>>> DD> CSS expert working on the look while HTML experts work on the
>>> content
>>> My signature at the end of each letter is content or look ??!!
> DD> It is content.
>
> Strongly disagreed !!
> It is look.

No, it is content. Possibly not primary content, but most definitely  
content. I think you might find a lot of authors objecting if you  
remove their credits from published documents while claiming that was  
just presentation.

>>> Multiple repeated attributes ON CONCRETE SITE are 'look' ONLY,
>>> independently of how W3's officials specify them.
>>> DD> presentation in CSS and semantics in HTML works just
>>> DD> fine, with little duplication of effort
>>> Please, multiply to quantity of population, than to quantity of
>>> pages on sites - and you will get real number of duplications,
>>> which are quite not little.
> DD> The vast majority of duplicated content is wholesale blocks of
> DD> content (such as page footers)
>
> Objection is not suitable, because describe other case -
> duplication of element's content _and_ element's attributes
> (instead of duplication of attributes only).


As I mentioned previously - my experience is that there is very  
little in the way of attributes which are duplicated from page to  
page which are not either (a) presentational or (b) accompanied by  
elements and content. The example that you gave (your signature) is  
not something that could be added to HTML without adding elements  
(and either text or graphics).

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 14:14:44 UTC