[Klug-general] Interactive Websites

[Allen Brooker]

Peter Childs wrote:
> On 15/12/06, Karl Lattimer <karl at qdh.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 14:43 +0000, Peter Childs wrote:
>> > several differnt dialects of HTML/XHTML and CSS
>> > which is not even XML complient.
>>
>> CSS compliant with XML BAH!, I expect you're completely ignorant of the
>> total structure of CSS, if you look into how much it can do, then you'll
>> find that its the way it is for a really good reason, for instance XML
>> could only apply to one or two XML elements.
> 
> But why could they not structure it in XML so that least you only had
> to learn one way to structure a file!. I'm sure I could come up with a
> DTD that would make an XML version capapble of doing EVERYTHING in
> CSS. I expect you are not sure exactly how flexable XML really is.

I'm sorry , but what are you smoking? The only thing structuring CSS
definition files with XML would do is bloat them and make them
completely unreadable.

Compare:

tag .class {
	property: value;
	property1: value;
	another-property: value;
}

tag:pseudo-class {
	property: value;
}

with something laong the lines of:
<tag name="tag">
<class name="class">
<attribute name="property" value="value"/>
<attribute name="property1" value="value"/>
<attribute name="another-property" value="value"/>
</class>
</tag>
<tag name="tag">
<pseudoclass name="pseudo-class">
<attribute name="property" value="value/>
</psuedoclass>
</tag>

It's people like you who abuse XML by trying to rewrite every single
file ever created using it and give XML a bad name. XML does have a use
- but uselessly bloating simple text files is not it.

Allen

> 
> Peter Childs
> 
>>
>> K,
>>