W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 1999

RE: The "title" attribute of "style" elements

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:08:08 -0800
Message-ID: <C35556591D34D111BB5600805F1961B90C311CC2@RED-MSG-47>
To: "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>, py8ieh=mozilla@bath.ac.uk, www-html@w3.org
Cc: dsr@w3.org, ij@w3.org, lehors@w3.org
L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@fas.harvard.edu] wrote:
>Chris Wilson (cwilso@MICROSOFT.com) wrote:
>> ...there are a VERY large number of documents that include more than one
>> STYLE element.
>Yes, but how many of them have TITLE attributes?  That's the only
>question relevant to analyzing Ian's proposal.  I would guess almost
>none, since currently the TITLE attribute doesn't "do" anything.

What a waste.  You have a variety of choices for how to implement this
functionality in a way that does not break backward compatibility - in fact,
I gave you a way to do so that I chose two years ago explicitly so that it
would not cause this problem - and you insist that the right way to do this
is a way that would screw backward compatibility for those of us who have
already invested in CSS.

>I strongly support Ian's proposal.  If one sees one of the purposes for
>embedded stylesheets as overriding rules in a linked stylesheet (as
>I do), then it could be very useful.

And I did not state that was not a useful mechanism.  In fact, I found it so
useful I implemented a way to do it two years ago.

>My opinion on Ian's question, BTW, is that his proposal in no way
>disagrees with the current HTML specification.  HTML, as it exists
>today, does not describe when the contents of the STYLE element are to
>be used.

Fine, then you can make the HTML specification an even less realistic and
useful specification in the future by steadfastly refusing to not destroy
backward compatibility.

-Chris Wilson
Received on Thursday, 4 November 1999 18:22:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:51 UTC