W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?)

From: Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 02:59:20 +0100
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9i8passlvot8cfb1ubp4ji9mflli32pcfh@4ax.com>
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:40:07 -0500, "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@jelks.nu>
wrote:

>Sue Sims pragmatically asked:
>> > > On the rare occasion I need to override a rule from my external CSS...
>> > > Let me <span> the silly thing and be done with it...please?

Will work Ok for those "rare occasions" (when we want to keep the
Chineese out of reach :)

>To which John W Pierce rather despairingly responded:
>
>> > This is exactly right. Which, of course, almost without doubt means that the
>> > spec will wind up disallowing it in some way.
>
>Which Murray Altheim attempted to clarify:
>
>> Simply because somebody likes frames or inline styling, or <blink> or
>> <barf> doesn't mean we stick it in a specification. ...
>>
>> XHTML 1.0 is essentially *all* of HTML 4.0, so use it. XHTML 1.1 is a very
>> functional subset of that, using a modular framework to allow for all sorts
>> of extensions. Use HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0 as you need to. Nobody is removing
>> either from the playing field. XHTML 1.1 will be used for purposes other
>> than perhaps than you find valuable. Fine. Don't use it.

It has been stated (possibly overstated) that "cool URI's dont't change"
Murrays input here is just in line with that, and I can live with it, if
it proves to be true in a long run.

>Murray, are you saying XHTML 1.1 does *not* permit inline styling?  At
>	http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/xhtml_modules.html#s_textmodule
>it shows that most of the elements contain the "COMMON" attributes.  COMMON is
>defined as Core + Events + i18n + Style.  It then adds:
>
>	Also note that the Style collection is only defined when
>	the Stylesheet Module is selected. Otherwise, the Style
>	collection is empty.
>
>So if you include the Stylesheet Module (which anyone wanting to use CSS would
>do), don't you have inline styling capability in XHTML 1.1.  What am I missing?

I want to know that too. And I would like to add, what the heck is going
on with the content model of the STYLE element?

At one time when HTML4 was in a proposed state, STYLE was given a
content model of #PCDATA, then it suddenly changed to become CDATA ??

In XHTML1.0 it is [ (#PCDATA) which can contain CDATA sections ] ???
(please note the (...) par.s surrounding that #PCDATA thingy in the DTD,
I'm sorta used to see some kind of "qualifier mark" after such par.s
like a '?' or a '*' or a '+' (but I'm not the best of guys on SGML eiter
of course:)

-- 
Jan Roland Eriksson <jrexon@newsguy.com>
<URL:http://member.newsguy.com/%7Ejrexon/>
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 20:54:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT