begin quoting Wade Curry as of Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 06:41:12PM -0800: > Stewart Stremler([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 04:50:53PM -0800: > > 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".
I like simplicity. I get the impression that the W3C secretly despises it. > > That being said, it's on my list of "one day, maybe, if I get the time" > > projects. :) > > "Never" is easier to type. ;-) Heh. Don't deny me my dreams, man. > > And why /shouldn't/ a browser work just fine without a CSS module? > > 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. To a point. There are other concerns that need to be taken into account. Looking at how one does layout with CSS (as opposed to the markup) has led me to believe that either CSS is The Wrong Way[tm], or the "separate structure and content" is a poor meme. Part of this is that I tend to "view source" (and my email is text, no HTML interpretation at all) a lot, so I'm looking directly at the content -- and it's getting progressively more and more obscured. I see a LOT of <div class="topleft"> and <div class="centerright">, which really does count as structure. The thing is, that's the natural way to do it, so you can't blame the website creators -- they're working within the bounds of the tools they have. > 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. Sometimes. Netscape with CSS disabled got to be unusable -- too many websites would show up as blank pages. (I had to give up netscape and switch to mozilla, which didn't make me happy until mozilla got tabbed browsing). > In lieu of CSS, what would you recommend? Another style-sheet > language? or an entirely different approach? I'm not sure... I just think it would be wise to slow down and examine some of the alternatives for awhile, rather than this full-speed-ahead think-about-the-consequences-later approach we have now. Of course, I am now fighting industry inertia *and* The Shiny Effect, so I'm doomed. There's content, there's style, and there's layout. My Ideal Solution would have content be pretty readable directly; style would be optional (case, color, shading, font, etc.) and user-settable; and layout would be succinctly defined and again user-adjustable. -- Frames may be evil, but they're a better approach to layout than CSS. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
