LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG Archives

HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG  February 1996

HTML-WG February 1996

Subject:

Re: Do we have a rough consensus on html/style?

From:

[log in to unmask] (Murray Altheim)

Date:

Sun, 4 Feb 1996 17:55:33 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)


Daniel W. Connolly <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>In message <[log in to unmask]>,
>Paul Prescod writes:
>>The STYLE attribute documentation, could, likewise say:
>>
>>"The STYLE attribute is meant to be a standardization of the variants of
>>vendor-specific presentational hints. Since the STYLE attribute is
>>inherently style sheet and browser specific, HTML documents should not use
>>STYLE attributes -- the CLASS and ID attributes are more expressive, more
>>consistent with the design philosophies of HTML and more consistently
>>supported.  Style sheets may use CLASS to change the presentation of an
>>element subclass and ID for an idiosyncratic single-element stylistic change."
>
>I second the suggestion that this prose be inserted into the HTML/Style
>draft.

I guess I'm just unclear as to why we would want to standardize an
unrecommended behaviour, even if we immediately label it deprecated -- this
is quite different than HTML 2.0 deprecating an earlier 1.0 feature such as
PLAINTEXT (I don't think one can even label something deprecated until it
has at least existed in an earlier standards-track document (?)).

>Larry's post was right on target, except that I don't see how the
>issues can usefully be cut any finer than tables in one draft and
>style markup in another.

   from <draft-ietf-html-style-01.txt>:
   >[...] Style rules can be (a) included with individual HTML
   >elements to which they apply, (b) grouped together in the document
   >head, or (c) placed in associated style sheets. This specification
   >does not specify particular style sheet notations, leaving that to
   >other specifications.

   changed to (with associated changes in the draft body):
   >[...] Style rules can be (a) grouped together in the document
   >head, or (b) placed in associated style sheets. This specification
   >does not specify particular style sheet notations, leaving that to
   >other specifications.

Moving "(a) included with individual HTML elements to which they apply" to
a separate draft so that it can be discussed separately is what Larry
suggested, and as I've said before, I would support this action.

If 'finer' is going from two to three drafts in order for progress to
occur, I think that's certainly acceptable. Style attribute markup within
the HTML document body is a separate issue than STYLE in HEAD or LINKed to
external stylesheets (which are effectively the same).

With that I think we'd see a quick consensus on two drafts, which would be
real progress and necessary on two counts: stylesheets and tables would
exist in RFC-bound documents, and vendors could soon begin implementing
according to an RFC rather than an I-D.

The only change talked about apart from that is the inclusion of error
behavior language on unspecified style notation. My vote there would be to
ignore the style information. If the author fails to specify a notation, we
certainly can't assume anything about what was used. From a browser
perspective, if the specified style notation is not understood, the same
would apply.

Murray

______________________________________________________
    Murray Altheim, Program Manager
    Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
    email:  [log in to unmask]
    http:   http://www.stonehand.com/murray/murray.htm





Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager