W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 1998

Re: adv. of css, but why not html.

From: Alex Fabrikant <afabrikant@smtpgtwy.ausd.k12.ca.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:26:42 -0700
Message-Id: <s540a17a.079@smtpgtwy.ausd.k12.ca.us>
To: knumb@hotmail.com, www-html@w3.org
>>> "*Nicholas Owens*" <knumb@hotmail.com> 04/24/98 01:23PM >>>
>one of the big adv. of css is its ability to so-called cascade.  for 
>instance, an entire site may have a basic.css file that covers basic 
>stuff such as backgrounds that can be held readily avail. in the user's 
>cache, and the particular dept may have it's own dept1.css file that 
>would cascadeonto the basic.css file but provide other stuff such as 
>font size and line size.  that's all well and good and i see alot fo the 
>future of that.  why can't that be the case in pure html.  why can't we 
>refer to a file that would specify basic backround stuff or text color, 
>to remain in the user-agent's cache, and then have other local files to 
>cascade onto said basic.html file?  i understand the many other obvious 
>adv. that css presents and will phase out my life with html as soon as 
>it becomes excepted more.

This appears to be equivalent to the use of an #include-like element discussed here earlier. Refer to prior discussion regarding <INCLUDE> vs. SSI.

Alex Fabrikant

Received on Friday, 24 April 1998 22:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:47 UTC