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

FW: The style attribute, again

From: Peter Foti (PeterF) <PeterF@SystolicNetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:29:41 -0400
Message-ID: <A10A983C9DFBD4119F0300104B2EA6B7260275@ZIPPY>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>


First, let me say that I am against the style attribute.  I 
think the main argument (if my memory serves me correctly) was 
that for copying from one document to another, there was no way 
to keep the style information unless the style information was 
included within the content (via the style attribute).

My thought on the subject was that there should be a STYLE 
element allowed within the body of a document that could be 
applied to a certain scope.  Perhaps a STYLE tag with an 
attribute that signifies an IDREF that identifies the container 
where the style should be applied.  For example:

   <div class="b">
      No styles here.
   <style scope="imported">
   .b { font-weight: bold; }
   <div id="imported">
      This text was <span class="b">imported</span>.

Or perhaps some method of using namespaces to siginify where 
the style should be applied.  I never really put much thought 
into it, and no one seemed to take much notice when I suggested it.

Peter Foti

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-html-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Andy
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 12:51 PM
> To: Daniel Glazman; www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: The style attribute, again
> Daniel Glazman wrote:
> >
> > Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> >
> >> IIRC, the last post to www-html list about this issue was by Ian 
> >> Hickson's "We don't need the style attribute" 
> >> 
> <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Jan/0277.html>. 
> >> Nobody expressed disagreement.
> >
> >
> > Because the people in favor of the style attribute were a 
> bit fed up of
> > discussing this issue with Ian. Our lack of answer there 
> should not be
> > understood as "we gave up".
> And what about us silent folks who agreed? In my opinion, there is no 
> need for the style attribute and should be deprecated in 
> XHTML2. For the 
> example:
>     <span style="font-weight: bold;">bold text</span>
> Why not just use:
>     .b { font-weight: bold; }
>     ...
>     <span class="b">bold text</span>
> Stuff like this is a no brainer for me personally. I do 
> however realize 
> that the bold example wasn't an example from the 'pro style 
> attribute' 
> side of this discussion, so I challenge you to come up with a 
> 'real life 
> example' which argues your point.
> -Andy
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 13:17:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:03 UTC