- From: Dmitry Turin <sql4-en@narod.ru>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:11:40 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
David, >>>>>>>>>> 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 !! >>>>>> You can accept convention, that any look is content - >> DD> what something is not determined by where you put it. >> Not 'where', but 'how much time'. DD> The time it takes to turn a background blue doesn't change that a DD> blue background is a matter of presentation. Color of background is other mental category, than text (including background text). DD> The time it takes to DD> state that the primary language of a document is English doesn't DD> change that that information is not a matter of presentation. I agree with you, that language of documents should be moved into CAS. >>>>>>>>>> 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. DD> The definitions of "presentational", "appearance", "style" and DD> "content" that you are using seem to different from the meanings that DD> the W3C, the Oxford English Dictionary, and the rest the world use. I admit, that any classification, used now, can be wrong (previous centuries give similar examples). P.S. This definitions are not bound with existance of XSL. Dmitry Turin SQL5 (5.10.0) http://sql50.euro.ru HTML6 (6. 5.2) http://html60.euro.ru Unicode7 (7. 2.1) http://unicode70.euro.ru Computer2 (2. 0.2) http://computer20.euro.ru
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:14:19 UTC