- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:31:26 +0000
- To: CSS Style <www-style@w3.org>
On 20 Jan 2008, at 21:30, Dmitry Turin wrote: >>>>>>> Multiple repeated attributes ON CONCRETE SITE are 'look' ONLY, >>>>>>> independently of how W3's officials specify them. > DD> I rather system the OED would disagree with you. > > ?? The Oxford English Dictionary. > DD> it also does a number of > DD> things which makes it incompatible with it. > > For example ? Media types is the obvious one. >>>>>>> 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> You seem to be confusing a class (or a class selector) with a > rule- > DD> set. You might want to reread those parts of the HTML and CSS > DD> specifications. > > I will not guessing about your objection - objection must be concrete. > I'm listening you. I'll try to explain it in simpler terms. When people write a stylesheet, they write a number of rule-sets. Each rule-set consists of a number of properties, each of which has a value. The selector describes which elements in the document those property/value pairs apply to. One of the things the selector can use to describe the elements the rule-set applies to is classes, but there are other types of selectors in CSS, so a selector can be written to match an element without creating a class. >>>>>>> DD> CSS expert working on the look >>>>>>> DD> while HTML experts work on the content >>>>>>> My signature at the end of each letter is content or look ??!! >>>>> DD> It is content. >>>>> 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 - > DD> No. Content (written in HTML) has an appearance (written in CSS). > > You use terms in back direction: > all, written in HTML, is content; all, written in CSS, is look. No. Dropping a car in the ocean doesn't make it a boat. Presentation is presentation and content is content, while there are occasions where the line is blurry (pictures of text being the prime example), what something is is not determined by where you put it. > But content itself and look itself are category of thinking - > items must be bring to content or look depending of mental > characteristics (instead of depending of written language). I have no idea what you are trying to say here. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 07:31:39 UTC