Re[22]: css with attribues [software]

David,

>>>> Let attributes in css will be media-specific.
>> 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.
DD> Which just underlines the inappropriateness of CSS for your proposed
DD> feature.

Whole appropriateness:
CSS wholely covers (satisfies) needs, appearing at merging attributes
and properties into single space. And '@media all {' in

@media all {
  tag { attr: val }
}

means, that possibilities of CSS is wider, then needs of merging.

>>>> 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
>> DD> (and generally should not use them).
>> I.e. create unique class for unique place of site ?
DD> There are various ways that selectors can be crafted to match
DD> elements. Classes might come into it.

You can write properties either in tag,
or in definition of class, isnt't it ?
What is the third way, about which you are speaking ?

---

>>>> 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. Even existance of XSL says about my rightness !!
DD> No, it is content. Possibly not primary content ...

  How many types of content can you separate ??
  You can accept convention, that any look is content -
and name each content, which is not content really,
as 'secondary content'.
  E.g. Soviet Union has no unemployment. But western books says,
that it has unemployment - during time, when man move from one city
to another city.
  E.g. You can name healthy man as hidden sick -
and let he will live hundred years.

DD> I think you might find a lot of authors objecting if you
DD> remove their credits from published documents while claiming that was
DD> just presentation.

You are substituting question.
If you will delete signature from header/footnote of each page,
except last page, then you will save information !!
but author will claim, because reason of marketing
(he want, what advertisement would climb into eyes).

>>>> 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).
DD> there is very
DD> little in the way of attributes which are duplicated from page to
DD> page which are not either (a) presentational or (b) accompanied by
DD> elements and content.

Agreed.
Quantity of them is less, than quantity of current properties.
We are already say about this.

DD> your signature) is
DD> not something that could be added to HTML without adding elements
DD> (and either text or graphics).

You are taking example from our other question -
duplication of 'tags+content+attribues'
(i was saying, that construction 'tags+content+attribues'
is look WHOLELY). But now we are speaking about
duplication of 'tags+attribues'.



Dmitry Turin
SQL5      (5.9.1)  http://sql50.euro.ru
HTML6     (6.5.1)  http://html60.euro.ru
Unicode7  (7.2.1)  http://unicode70.euro.ru
Computer2 (2.0.2)  http://computer20.euro.ru

Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 10:39:04 UTC