Re: Direct formatting STYLE attribute

lilley (
Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:23:05 +0000 (GMT)

Paul Prescod says:

> When you are trying to move people to a new paradigm, you must make it
> difficult to slip back into the old one. I would guess that that is why
> SmallTalk and Java don't have functions, and why ANSI C has strong type
> checking.

Nice argument, I like it. I am thus somewhat baffled that Paul concludes:

> The proposed STYLE attribute allows you to do your "red", "green", "blue"
> thing and still serves this educational purpose. It seems like a good
> compromise to me.

Are you talking about the style attribute proposal where the value is
a style name, or the one where it is allowed to contain arbitrary
stylesheet declarations?

Because the latter sounds very much like what you warn against:

a) the old one:

<h2 font+=2 face="garamond">

b) what lets you slip back:

<h2 style="{font-size: 3; font-family: garamond}">

c) what makes it "difficult to slip back" or rather, what points the way forward:

<h2 style="section-head"> or
<h2 class="chapter title"> or whatever we end up calling this
hook into stylesheets.

I presume therefore that you are referring to the other proposal, where
the style attribute takes a name only.

Chris Lilley, Technical Author and JISC representative to W3C 
|  Manchester and North Training & Education Centre   ( MAN T&EC )  |
| Computer Graphics Unit,             Email: |
| Manchester Computing Centre,        Voice: +44 161 275 6045       |
| Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.          Fax: +44 161 275 6040       |
| M13 9PL                            BioMOO: ChrisL                 |
| Timezone: UTC        URI: |