Posted by mbstevens on 11/08/07 17:52

dorayme wrote:
> 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.
>

I see a kind of smooth scale from pure semantic markup to
clog dancing monkeys. Different people place different points along that
scale where you should just control yourself, or switch over
to Flash or Java Applets. I would resist using the kind of code here
because I would not want to maintain it, and I just find its appearance
unneeded aesthetically. Of course you have to occasionally give in
to clients. (This is also my answer to Andy's reply.)

[Back to original message]