Perhaps not a great practice, but there is a certain amount of sense in this usage. If a page is dynamically assembled from multiple somewhat-independent sources, then the need for dropping in new <style> at the point the fragment is inserted into the page is understandable. Not great for the browser implementors, but if in practice class names are chosen so that the <style> only apply to the included fragment, then effect should be limited in scope. On the other hand, there are all the interesting test cases on MySpace. On 5/26/07, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote: > > > An unscoped <style> applies to the entire document. There's no point > in placing a <style> element in some random place in the <body>, > since the style rules added will apply to the whole document. This > is very bad practice, since an incremental display of a document will > have to rewind and re-evaluate style on everything seen so far. If > the elements are in the <head>, then this re-evaluation doesn't have > to occur. > > Some browsers (and I'm not endorsing this, but just pointing it out > because this is the end effect achieved anyway) actually move <style> > elements encountered in the <body> into the <head> during parsing. > > <style> outside the <head> is invalid HTML4 as well. > > dave > > On May 26, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote: > > > Dan Connolly wrote: > >> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 14:26 -0700, David Hyatt wrote: > >>> Please make this non-conforming. I don't think we should > >>> encourage this bad practice. > >> I wonder who you are directing this request to. You're an editor. > >> If you want the spec to change, please change it and > >> let us know. > > > > Sorry, this is bad for wysiwyg editors and I want to understand > > the rationale behind it. I disagree with the change w/o further > > explanations given here. > > > > </Daniel> > > >
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2007 22:48:53 UTC