- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:54:33 +0100
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Right. Knuth also controlled the implemenation and didn't have to test > combinatoral explosions in various browsers :) > > I'm intrigued by the power of expression and the elegant and humorous > syntax for it. But, do we have a hard-hitting use case? Well, I have to be honest and say that the current emphasis on "use cases" is, to my mind, an fairly major error of judgement. We should not imagine that we have the vision to see all the uses to which CSS (or HTML) might be put. Therefore, rather than trying to base design decisions on "use cases", I would rather they be informed by careful analysis. If it would appear that (a) implementation is feasible at reasonable effort, (b) that there would be no conflict with existing features, and (c) that it is /feasible/ (no more) that a "use case" may emerge in the future, then I would support its inclusion. My two penn'orth, but others may disagree. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 13:55:16 UTC