|
|
Posted by Jon Slaughter on 04/20/07 03:05
"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:1176978847.507632.149060@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Apr, 20:48, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have no idea why css can't have an selector algebra?
>
> 1. Because it just doesn't. Don't ask us, we're just the monkeys who
> use it. If you want it to have one, then you have to change the CSS
> recs (and browsers) rather than just writing pages in some new
> invented syntax.
>
um...
> 2. Because it doesn't need one. The level at which HTML works is
> supposed to be pretty dumb and close to the "end result" of a finished
> document. CSS is supposed to be (in the great architectural view)
> simple and efficient to implement, rather than powerful
>
um... you do realize that if its completely backwards compatible then it
cannot hurt anything? You like being dumb just for fun? That is, if it lets
css be dumb for those who want it but allow those who don't then it can't
hurt.
> If you need a magic selector, stick it into the HTML (class / id etc.)
> and use trivial CSS to select it. If you need lots of these selectors,
> then generate them from some precursor format to HTML (which might
> also be HTML or XHTML) and get them into the final HTML document
> before the CSS ever sees it.
>
>
> If you care about this stuff, I strongly recommend that you read Hakon
> Lie's PhD thesis on the design of CSS and the precursor technologies
> that it was either based on, or deliberately rejected. What you
> describe has some commonality with DSSSL's approach. As we know how
> successful _that_ was, CSS deliberately avoided that route.
>
I just don't see whats wrong with it if its completely backwards compatible.
There might be issues involved with it but you haven't pointed them out. It
does offer many advantaged and clearer code. CSS might be for the dumb but
if it can be transparently modifed to make it more powerful then there
should be no reason not to. Its not a good idea to be dumb for its own
sake.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|