|
|
Posted by Ben C on 04/20/07 06:55
On 2007-04-20, Jon Slaughter <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "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?
[...]
>> 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?
I don't. Please explain that principle.
> 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.
What if users don't know if they're dumb or not or which features are
the dumb ones they're supposed to stick to?
The standards are already quite complicated enough.
[...]
>> 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.
Some wise quotes from Dijkstra:
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own
skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids
clever tricks like the plague.
How do we convince people that in programming simplicity and clarity --
in short: what mathematicians call "elegance" -- are not a dispensable
luxury, but a crucial matter that decides between success and failure
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|