Re: <STYLE> considered harmful

Christian Mogensen (mogens@CS.Stanford.EDU)
Sat, 18 Mar 1995 17:22:01 -0800

Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>>Nope, it's in the <HEAD>, so even a conformant 2.0 browser won't display it
>>at all. Netscape and I believe all the Mosaics handle this fine.

__Luke writes:
>Yeah, you "believe". Have you really tried? lynx, netscape all displayed
>the dsssl-lite garbage. Besides, you know most html pages out there
>conveniently omit HEAD...

Duh! This is bogus. Most pages out there don't include <STYLE>..</>
either, so that's a non problem. With content negotiation the server
can decide whether or not serve a <STYLE>ified document to broken
browsers. i.e. unless the browser specifies ACCEPT text/html;version=2.0
the server can either tell it 'bug off and get a better browser' or it can
strip out the <STYLE></> info on the fly orit can serve an alternate version
of the document if it has one defined (CERN's multi facility).

If you see HTML as a whole, you will notice that the pieces sometimes fit
together quite nicely.

Note - I still think we should allow <LINK REL="STYLE" HREF="url"> for those
cases where many documents share a common style (i.e. all those man pages)
so that the style only has to be sent once instead of being sent for
every page. (i.e. the network bandwidth argument is also bogus in the long

However, this is all 2.1 talk at least! Let's get 2.0 OUT THE DOOR NOW!
Let us eliminate the excuse 'there is no published standard' once
and for all.

Christian "webhead <*>"