W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2003

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:14:55 -0500
Message-ID: <3E25CF4F.1020808@escape.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> 
> I still repeat that I'm not against keeping the style attribute per se, 
> but I'm against keeping it without a good reason. And I haven't seen 
> such a reason yet.
> 
> Research report (only a few latest posts)
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> Glazman said that id + CSS had some issue with namespaces. No further 
> explanation provided.

He means, I think, that once you use an ID or a class to associate
style with an element, you cannot re-use that ID or class for a
different purpose. Therefore, if I need to color one thing red just
once, and I must create a class "special" for to style it, I cannot
use "special" for any other purpose. If I instead use a style
attribute, "special" is not taken and can be used for other things.

Therefore, using an ID + CSS rule is not equal to using the style
attribute. (Equivalency was the original argument in that thread.)

Also, as Boris Zbarsky pointed out, the rules have different
specificity so a style attribute will override any other author
rules whereas an ID selector wouldn't.


As for reasons to keep the style attribute--
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Jan/0151.html

That is, to me, the strongest reason to keep the style attribute.
Also, the issue with namespaces only becomes a problem in that
context; it's not important in a normal document.


Daniel Glazman wrote:
 > copy and paste preserving the style.

Such logic would only make sense if you try use HTML as the back
end format of a full-featured word processor instead of a full-
featured markup editor.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 16:15:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT