Stylesheets - Re: Why eliminate or <marquee>?

Author

Re: Why eliminate or <marquee>?

VidTheKid

2006-08-10, 6:39 pm

Andy Dingley wrote:
> These
> are abuses of and no-one should defend them, but the fact that
> regularly gets mis-used doesn't mean that it should be removed.

I feel the same way about <marquee>. Maybe it was never officially
part of HTML but all the common browsers support it and it's found the
occasional use (and the occasional misuse). I would like to see
<marquee> standardized so it can be styled with consistency across
browsers.

--
Vid the Kid

Andy Dingley

2006-08-11, 6:34 am

VidTheKid wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> I feel the same way about <marquee>.

If you support <marquee>, why stop there? You'd also have to include
<dancing-penguins> and <cursor-trails>.

The effect of marquee is obtainable as a presentation effect. That of
 requires embedding in the markup itself (as either a tag or a
charcter, but that's a separate question). Adding marquee to CSS is
justifiable (architecturally if not aesthetically), but not adding it
to HTML.

Alan Silver

2006-08-13, 6:32 pm

In article <1155290994.838976.62850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Andy
Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> writes
>If you support <marquee>, why stop there? You'd also have to include
><dancing-penguins> and <cursor-trails>.

Now you're talking!! If only the W3C would add this sort of thing to
CSS, we could turn standards-based web design back into the ugly
nightmare of the late 1990s, only with valid pages!!

I would like to propose <dancing-ferrets> as an alternative. Please
support me in my quest to have it adopted as a standard.

<g>

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

Nik

2006-08-14, 6:47 pm

Alan Silver wrote:
>
> I would like to propose <dancing-ferrets> as an alternative. Please
> support me in my quest to have it adopted as a standard.
>

Surely the proper solution would be to hold the semantic content
<dancing creatures> in the HTML and to suggest the type of animal via
the stylesheet?

Nik

Andy Dingley

2006-08-14, 6:47 pm

Nik wrote:

> Alan Silver wrote:
>
> Surely the proper solution would be to hold the semantic content
> <dancing creatures> in the HTML and to suggest the type of animal via
> the stylesheet?

You mean "skinning" ?

Michael Stemper

2006-08-14, 6:47 pm

In article <ebppjr$84b$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Nik writes:
>Alan Silver wrote:

>
>Surely the proper solution would be to hold the semantic content
><dancing creatures> in the HTML and to suggest the type of animal via
>the stylesheet?

Absolutely backwards. Animals, be they penguins or ferrets, are
obviously content. Whether they're standing still or dancing is
presentation.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.

Jack

2006-08-14, 6:47 pm

Michael Stemper wrote:
> In article <ebppjr$84b$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Nik writes:
>
>
> Absolutely backwards. Animals, be they penguins or ferrets, are
> obviously content. Whether they're standing still or dancing is
> presentation.
>
Yes, I hadn't worked that out, but I certainly felt uncomfortable about
the previous remark. So you'd have markup like:

<penguin style="gait:dancing">

or perhaps
<drunkard style="gait:staggering">

....I suppose.

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

VidTheKid

2006-08-15, 6:45 am

Andy Dingley wrote:
> VidTheKid wrote:
>
> If you support <marquee>, why stop there? You'd also have to include
> <dancing-penguins> and <cursor-trails>.

Do commonly-used browsers support those tags?

> The effect of marquee is obtainable as a presentation effect. That of
> requires embedding in the markup itself (as either a tag or a
> charcter, but that's a separate question). Adding marquee to CSS is
> justifiable (architecturally if not aesthetically), but not adding it
> to HTML.

In other words, you're saying that adding marquee functionality to just
about any element via some CSS property (such as display: marquee)
would be acceptable without formally making <marquee> part of HTML?
I'd go with that. Not that I would advise assigning such a property to
most elements... The problem I see with the way things are now is that
I can't control padding in a marquee element in IE and I can't make a
marquee print as a normal block-level container. (If <marquee> were to
be included in the standard, I would hope the W3C would describe such
logical printing behavior, thus encouraging the browsers to implement
it.)

In general, I don't believe annoying or un-aesthetic things should be
made invalid, illegal, or impossible, just for being displeasing,
especially if they have some obscure but legitimate use. Start doing
that, and what's next, fashion police?

--
Vid the Kid

Jack

2006-08-15, 6:45 am

VidTheKid wrote:
>
> In general, I don't believe annoying or un-aesthetic things should be
> made invalid, illegal, or impossible, just for being displeasing,
> especially if they have some obscure but legitimate use. Start doing
> that, and what's next, fashion police?

Surely we're not discussing legislation, nor what might or might not be
"impossible"; the matter at hand seems to be what features ought to be
included in a specification. I would have thought that obscure and
annoying features would be excellent candidates for exclusion from such
a spec.

Advocates of annoying and obscure features ought to be permitted to
write their own specs; I wouldn't want that kind of behaviour to be
illegal, as long as my browser and I are permitted to ignore any
resulting 'recommendation'.

--
Jack.
http://www.jackpot.uk.net/

Alan Silver

2006-08-28, 6:38 pm

In article <1155629303.617207.52500@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
VidTheKid <vidthekid@XXXXXXXXXX> writes
>In general, I don't believe annoying or un-aesthetic things should be
>made invalid, illegal, or impossible, just for being displeasing,

Why not? I say shoot anyone who even contemplates using ugly design
features on their web pages. Line 'em up against the wall, along with
people who create splash pages for their home pages, people who fix font
sizes, people who pick their noses in public and ... sorry, I seem to be
getting carried away!!

> especially if they have some obscure but legitimate use. Start doing
>that, and what's next, fashion police?

Good idea ;-) Flares should be an illegal offence, punishable by public
flogging.

See, the hard-line right-wing militant approach isn't dead, just
relegated to the ranks of the terminally insane!!

Ta ra

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

Wes Groleau

2006-08-29, 3:33 am

Alan Silver wrote:
> See, the hard-line right-wing militant approach isn't dead, just
> relegated to the ranks of the terminally insane!!

People who are right militant about using terminals are insane.

--
Wes Groleau
-----------
I've been framed! ...
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html