Re: stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute

Douglas Rand (drand@sgi.com)
Sun, 07 Sep 1997 10:45:43 -0700


Message-ID: <3412E847.12C0263@sgi.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 10:45:43 -0700
From: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>
To: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
CC: www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute

Joel N. Weber II wrote:
>...
> A correct solution would have been to use style-type as an attribute
> name.  So I think it would be good to design browsers to look at
> style-type if it exists, type otherwise, and the default provided
> by HTTP or the META HTTP-EQUIV tag if no attribute specifies the type.
> 
> Comments?

I think this is not the right solution.  We could end up with
a forest of -type attributes like style-type, script-type, maybe
others.

Why can't a single declaration at the top of the document declare
the style language being used?  Have I missed a proposal to allow
users to specify the style content per element?  That would be a
very bad thing from a browser maker's point of view.

Doug
-- 
Doug Rand				drand@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics/SSO			http://reality.sgi.com/drand
Disclaimer: These are my views,  SGI's views are in 3D