Re: Coding practices of large sites

Brian <usenet3 (AT) julietremblay (DOT) com.invalid> wrote:

Harlan Messinger wrote:

Brian wrote:

Harlan Messinger wrote:

"Jan Roland Eriksson" wrote...

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-becss-19990804
If this draft or any of its siblings makes it as a
recommendation we will instantly find a cader of nasty
guys starting to examine the loop holes.

Even though the hooks to code are specified in CSS, the code
itself is still JS, and if you've got your JS turned off it still
ought not to run, without your also having to turn off CSS.

But what will admins do when they want to block all js? Right now,
they can block js via a firewall while permitting text/css. If this
is implemented, would they have to then block all css?

That could be avoided in favor of requiring behaviors to be
served from separate .HTC files, with which a distinctive
MIME type could be associated.

That would make sense, script-css in a separate file, with its own mime
type, but that is quite different than what the w3c are proposing. Then
again, do we really need all that complexity? Why not add new
pseudo-classes? e.g., ::active for any element instead of introducing
onclick.

The principal, if not only, reason is, I suppose, to permit the
appearance of one or more elements to change in response to
interaction with another element.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote

Fortunately, this apparent [Microsoft] attempt to completely discredit CSS for all
time was a failure :-}

Presumably Microsoftoft had an Evil Alternative Proprietary Standard to use
instead (anyone remember Blackbird ?). Any idea what it was, and how
ugly it was ?