Re: Stylesheet Ordering Requirement

On 05/20/2016 10:18 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2016/05/20 22:57, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>> One other thought on this topic:
>>
>> I wonder if this issue is a side effect of adding more rules in the base
>> style sheet. Having more rules has the nice effect that we can factorize
>> and reuse a lot more. It provides an off-the-shelf set of rules. etc. I
>> haven't heard anyone complaining about the increase of rules in the base
>> style sheet.
>>
>> But, it also means that the pubrules requirement is increasing, ie we're
>> making it hard to change rules around table layout, pre, code, nav,
>> ol.algorithm, example, etc. Those things were never intended to be the
>> target of the pubrules checker.
>>
>> In other words, from the perspective of pubrules, there is a set of
>> rules that we care in the base style sheet while there is a set that we
>> don't mind if the authors start modifying them. Since we've been
>> increasing the second set, the rule is getting more in the way.
>>
>> Is that correct?
>
> Assuming that's correct, then what about separating the rules we care
> and the rules we don't care that much into two different files, and
> require only the former to be last?

My reluctance for that is that it means we would have 2 files, with one 
under particular constraint.

There is also the case that we're increasing the number of requests but 
I guess this should be seen as job security for our system folks and the 
webperf group :)

In the set of solutions, we could:
1- have two files
2- remove the requirement as formulated and instead make sure check a 
lot smarter, such as check the computed style of some of the elements 
instead.

I haven't check with Comm to see which rule they care the most.

Philippe

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2016 18:02:58 UTC