Stewart Stremler([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 04:50:53PM -0800: > begin quoting Chuck Esterbrook as of Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 04:09:19PM -0800: > (discussing the plethora of web browsers and dearth of browser engines...)
> > Who says "Let's write a new engine? Yay!"? > > For the lack of that, I blame the W3C's idea of "standards". I'm curious to know how you come to that conclusion. The W3C doesn't enforce the standards. The adoption of them seems to have been voluntary, and a vast improvement over older "standards". > > That being said, it's on my list of "one day, maybe, if I get the time" > projects. :) "Never" is easier to type. ;-) > > -- > And why /shouldn't/ a browser work just fine without a CSS module? > Stewart Stremler > This remark took me by surprise. Well... kind of. I was under the impression that you thought the structure vs. style distinction was a good one. As far as I know, style sheets are not required, so why should the module be required for the browser? Lynx works fine without 'em. In lieu of CSS, what would you recommend? Another style-sheet language? or an entirely different approach? Wade Curry syntaxman -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
