- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 13:32:42 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Kynn Bartlett writes: > Okay, so you are saying that presentation (e.g. CSS) should be used > to define the meaning of content, rather than being encoded in the > markup? > > Or in both? > > This goes counter to my understanding of how CSS and XML (and other > Web languages) are meant to function. Can you please explain more > about this theory of yours, and describe how it benefits those with > special needs? At first pass, it sounds like you are arguing that > <font> tags instead of <h1> tags in HTML were the way to go, roughly > speaking. I read Elliotte as saying that one kind of presentation (CSS font information) may used as a guide to creating another kind of presentation. I don't think there's anything at all remarkable in that claim, though it seems to have set off a new round of asbestos-demanding conversation. Separating content from presentation is certainly difficult, as Walter Perry discussed in his presentation at Extreme Markup Languages last week, and I think trying to hammer out the one true separation is pointless. I have to say that I'm deeply deeply disappointed by the "generic XML considered harmful" bogosity that seems endemic on this list. I can't say I got any such feeling from documents focused on the subject, notably: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlgl (2.3 needs fixing, but that's okay.) It seems like any XML document whose creators read and applied that document should feel comfortable publishing to the Web, whether or not the semantics of that document format is broadly understood by software. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 13:32:46 UTC