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

RE: Alternatives to 'style' attribute?

From: Peter Foti (PeterF) <PeterF@SystolicNetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:29:55 -0500
Message-ID: <A10A983C9DFBD4119F0300104B2EA6B725FF89@ZIPPY>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>

What about some form of scoped style sheets, where the style rules only
apply to the elements that are within the scope of the style definitions?
For example:

<div id="toplevel">
   <style>
      #toplevel
      {
         color: black;
         font-family: arial, sans-serif;
      }
   </style>
   <p>This is black arial</p>
   <div>
      <style>
         #toplevel
         {
            color: white;
            font-family: times, serif;
         }
         
         p
         {
            color: red;
         }
      </style>
      This is black arial because the style
      for white times was applied to id toplevel,
      which is out of scope.
      <p>This is red arial.</p>
   </div>
   <p>This is black arial.</p>
</div>


Of course, this approach is not backwards compatible because the style that
usually goes in the <head> would be out of scope... and of course, doesn't
address issues of repeating ID values.  I'm just throwing the idea out
there.  :)

Peter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Micah Dubinko
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:24 PM
> To: 'Boris Zbarsky'; Mikko Rantalainen
> Cc: Daniel Glazman; www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Alternatives to 'style' attribute?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> The flawed assumption in this argument is that the only 
> choices are to have
> a 'style' attribute or not. There are many other 
> possibilities, for instance
> <style> elements allowed outside the head, nesting, etc.
> 
> Couldn't we brainstorm on some other alternatives? Binary 
> choices are so
> limiting! :-)
> 
> .micah
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:04 AM
> To: Mikko Rantalainen
> Cc: Daniel Glazman; www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful
> 
> 
> 
> > You cannot copy and paste *content with the styling 
> information only* if 
> > the target medium is sematic one, like (X)HTML. Period.
> 
> While this may be what you would like to be the case, in the 
> real world (of
> wysiwyg HTML editors, which you probably think cannot exist 
> either) this
> situation is not necessarily acceptable.  You _do_ want to be 
> able to copy a
> paragraph out of an HTML e-mail and into a document you're writing and
> (optionally) preserve the style.
> 
> Boris
> -- 
> Windows 95:
>    (noun): 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for
> a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally
> coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit
> company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 17:19:58 GMT

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