On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:56 +0100, Peter Ring wrote:
> If we have
>
> - mean clean lean XHTML that accurately represent
(in whose opinion?)
> the rendering *intention*
of whom?
> without messing with
> the actual rendition
>
> - a modular CSS that reflects the *types* of
> rendition intention, take advantage of the
> 'Cascading' in CSS and some way to represent
> property groups
>
> it is piece of cake to change fonts, colors, margins,
> linking behaviour, etc. in a typographically consistent
> manner.
Too many assumptions there Peter?
I agree with your starting point.
Clean XHTML with CSS 'hooks'
> The main point of using CSS is actually that you can get rough
> and ready output for a website, while I re-purpose the same XHTML
> for an e-book, and someone else syndicates the content into a
> glossy weblog.
Totally agree. CSS (for some browsers) is quite good.
How it's used is another matter.
I might call it taste?
I like X
you like Y
That's all I'm saying.
In that respect, yes we seem to agree.
Bit like saying that a particular codec
is 'better' than another.
Its all subjective.
regards DaveP
