Posted by dorayme on 11/08/07 08:28

In article <13j5f4djrkk9213@corp.supernews.com>,
mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <13j5b6j72c0ahfc@corp.supernews.com>,
> > mbstevens <NOXwebmasterx@xmbstevensx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Nik Coughlin wrote:
> >>
> >>> I believe that this is the minimum amount of markup necessary to achieve
> >>> this effect :) Would love to be proven wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Is the effect worth the internal complexity?
> >
> > Depends on how you count it. It only has to be done once by the
> > author, and from then on it can give multiple pleasure. On
> > principle, this may well be worth it.
>
> I'll have to trust others reports that it gives them pleasure.
>
> Like the often seen attempts at rounded box corners, it looks
> mid-90s kitschy to me, but as you say below, individual choice might
> be allowable.

One has to abstract from the individual implementations. The
argument might be on a higher level, namely, are all designs that
stretch and bend and flex various things that cannot be so easily
done 'purely', to be ruled out of order on grounds of a semantic
ideal, is semantic purity in web matters such a very strong and
clear concept that it can bear the weight of such strictness?

So weighty and poignant are these questions that I urge a
humbleness before them, a patience from rushing to judgement.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]