Re: Re[3]: css with attribues [general]

On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Dmitry Turin wrote:

>>>> Unfortunately, there is an undercurrent of opinion on this list
>>>> (or perhaps even a theme of the CSSWG) that authors must be
>>>> protected from themselves, and that the Web must be protected from
>>>> authors. It rears
>>> That shouldn't be surprising as I think that one of the main
>>> reasons for introducing CSS in the first place was to remove
>>> presentational attributes from HTML.
> BK> That's true. At the time, there was no other way to have  
> distinctive,
> BK> well-designed pages
>
> Oy boy!
> I expected, that main reasons to segregate
> (not to develop in future) were
>  to reduce manual job,
>  to follow structurized thinking,
>  to ecomonize traffic at least,
> but to domesticate (tame) users - i can't expect this !!
>

Speaking historically, it was not so much to tame designers as it was  
to finally address their needs, in a way that was not so messy. The  
things you list above were part of "How do we _best_ address the  
needs of Web designers/authors".

> BK> if we want to include some ideas from HTML
> BK> attributes that we haven't already, then that should be done
> BK> formally, on a case-by-case basis
>
> 'formally' and 'case-by-case' (individually) are opposite.

No, they aren't.

> BK> CAS ... is well
> BK> beyond the scope of this working group, and should remain so.
>
> Inter-discipline science against-the-will must be entered
> into known discipline to get financing :)

Good luck with that. Arguing against the core tenets of a discipline  
will not help in entering in to it.