LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG Archives

HTML-WG Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave HTML-WG
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: draft-ietf-html-style-00.txt
From: [log in to unmask] (Michael J Hannah)
Reply-To:[log in to unmask]
Date:Wed, 6 Dec 95 11:42:19 EST
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (38 lines)



++ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 10:02:14 EST
++ From: [log in to unmask] (Scott E. Preece)
++ 
++    From: [log in to unmask] (Michael J Hannah)
++ 
++ |   I understand the motivation for this attribute, and would like
++ |   to propose a constructive alternative that I believe would provide
++ |   the functionality that the people who wish to include it have
++ |   expressed, and yet resolve the arguments that the people opposed
++ |   to it have also expressed.
++ ---
++ 
++ Well, it doesn't address the issue I raised in earlier mailing-list
++ discussion.  When I really am doing styling of unique elements, where what
++ I am doing to each element is specific to that element and there is no
++ class of similarly-styled elements, I really want to be able to use
++ anonymous styles rather than having to create pseudo-names and indirect
++ through a stylesheet.  I don't want to lose that notational concision in
++ the interest of forcing other people to do the right thing.

Gee, I must be missing something here.  My proposal does not require an
indirect through a stylesheet.  It DOES require what you call "pseudo-names"
but the style notation is right in the HTML doc, not in a separate style
sheet.  For the price of using a pseudo-name you get the benefit of being
able to mark multiple text with a simple STYLE="name" without the need
to duplicate that CSS notation with its attendent likelihood of error.
You seem to feel that what you are doing will be unique to each occurance.
While that may be true, I find it more likely that people will want to do
the same special thing multiple times.  I believe that my proposal makes
this more likely case LOTS easier, and your each-one-unique still very
possible and only a little more difficult.  Or are we likely to agree
to disagree?  What is little to one may be big in the eyes of another.

Michael



Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main HTML-WG Page

Permalink



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager