On 02/13/2010 02:35 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> HTML is presentation.  Ok, its not all of presentation (some stuff is in
> CSS), but HTML definitely is presentation.  Talk to any designer and ask
> them if they can change a design through CSS alone and they'll think you are
> joking, I promise.
> 
> 
>> Yes it would be possible to express structure with a different language,
>> say XML, but there would be no benefit, the outcome would be exactly the
>> same, and the way we do it now we get compatibility with
>> old/non-js/accessible browsers for free. We then convert structure to
>> presentation using CSS (which can do *almost* anything, including drop-downs
>> and menus), and we use Javascript for live data updating and occasionally
>> for update-in-place interactive stuff.
> 
> 
> Your idea of the boundary between code and presentation is incorrect.  It
> isn't between HTML and CSS, its between the code and HTML.
> 
> 
>> You may accuse this of being a 1999 model, but it's a perfectly good model.
> 
> 
> It is a 1999 model, and it isn't perfectly good which is why nobody else has
> used it since about 1999, nobody sane anyway.  All web frameworks treat both
> HTML and CSS and presentation, and consider it very bad practice to have
> HTML in code.  They know what they are talking about.
> 

IMO this is a overly ideological. I haven't looked at the specifics of FProxy
but it's certain possible (and theoretically simple) to do the whole "HTML
structure" vs "CSS presentation" thing. It doesn't have to be hard on the
designer to present a static HTML page that they can only edit the CSS for.

You haven't considered switching costs; we already have FProxy and it's much
easier to change it to write simpler HTML, than it is to introduce a whole new
data structures vs markup templates framework. Since we don't have that many
man-hours to spare, you either need to come up with these man-hours, or justify
why it's beneficial to take the hit for these switching costs. (At the moment
you're only justifying why case A is better than case B, but not why it's
better to switch.)

X

Reply via email to