- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:19:49 -0500
- To: Eric Daspet <eric.daspet@survol.fr>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
- Message-Id: <C814FD4B-F972-4162-884F-031D0FE6D36D@robburns.com>
On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Eric Daspet wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com > wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:52:51 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >> 2. Syndication is also addressed by <style scope>.
> >
> > Fully disagree.
>
> I said "also". Could you please elaborate on why you disagree with
> that?
>
>
> I do not see how "style scoped" could be a solution for
> syndication. And, more generaly, I do not see how someone could
> benefit from "style scoped" to put some external pieces of HTML
> into a main document.
>
> [.. ]
A better solution to this problem (of styling external syndicated
content) is to focus on semantics. Sites should focus on semantics
through: HTML semantic elements, semantic oriented values for @class,
@role, @type, etc. If they do then head elements can include scopes
within a standard head stylesheet such as:
<html>
<head>
...
<style type='text/css'>
.contentFromWashingtonPost > .personalNoun {...}
</style>
...
</head>
<body>
...
<article class='contentFromWashingtonPost'>
...
</article>
...
</body>
</html>
Again, there may be a better solution for a CSS WG. They could
provide some more explicit scoping like a @scope {} keyword. In any
even a focus on semantics will provide a much cleaner solution to
this problem (just more reason we should be deprecating
presentational facilaties).
Take care,
Rob
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 21:20:12 UTC