In article <3d7349c6@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   It seems to be more a question of principle than logic. I still don't
> recall you explaining what is so bad about CSS. I can't see what is so bad
> about it; it makes maintaining big sets of HTML documents easier and helps
> separating content from layout, which is a good thing. It also makes it easy
> to make available several alternative layouts for the same content.

I am against the layout being provided by the site.  I want full control
over the layout like I had in HTML originally.  No visual clutter, just
plain information (be it text or pictures) quick and easy to access.  Just
like in paper books rather than commercial advertisements leaflets.

In essence, what does the added layout provide me with that I don't already
have? -- Nothing but problems that I then have to waste my time solving!

On the other hand, has the added layout feature solved any of the
shortcoming of the original HTML like the inability to display formulas
well? -- No, and it still does not.  And why?  Because nobody supports those
"recommendations".

The problem is that rather than focusing on _solutions_, the W3C focuses on
_features_.  This is a typical situation for industry organisations.  They
never did and never will deliver something that is useful, because once it
exists they have nothing new to sell next year (and they don't crea what
they could sell in five years) and thus can't drive their business further.
So there is no reason for them to provide solutions, only features when they
define so-called "standards" or "recommendations" :-(

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message