W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Wiki page for style attribute

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:19:49 -0500
Message-Id: <C814FD4B-F972-4162-884F-031D0FE6D36D@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Eric Daspet <eric.daspet@survol.fr>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC