W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 1996

A few anomalies in the draft...

From: Chris Wilson (PSD) <cwilso@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:55:38 -0800
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-73-MSG960131094755GX007401@red-03-imc.itg.microsoft.com>
To: Stylesheet WG <www-style@w3.org>
A few other things I've noted in the draft, some of which are essentially 
typos...
1) Anchor pseudo-classes: The ":link" pseudo-class seems redundant.  Isn't 
this just the default behaviour for <A>?  The only use I could see is for 
setting properties on unvisited links that don't show up on visited links, 
but allowing those properties to be inherited on visited links.  Or is this 
to allow the distinction of <A> tags without HREFs?  At the very least, I 
believe the pseudo-class name should be changed to "unvisited" to make this 
difference evident.

2) I still feel the requirement of indicating to the reader which 
stylesheets are in effect and allowing individual control of them is out of 
place as a conformance requirement.  It adds unnecessary complexity to the 
UI when the main goal can be accomplished in an application-specific way 
(e.g., "Ignore stylesheets" toggle and accessibility stylesheets).

3) The vertical-align description makes reference to the <C> tag - this 
should be changed to <SPAN>.

4) Vertical-align: 'text-top' is described as "align with the top of the 
parent element's font".  Align WHAT with the top of the parent element's 
font?  The top of this element?  'text-bottom' and 'baseline' have the same 
ambiguities ('baseline' is only ambiguous when considering images or tables; 
any item that does not necessarily have a baseline).

5) It is stated that pseudo-classing a selector that already uses a class, 
e.g.:
H.foo:first-letter { vertical-align: top; font-size: 300%; float: left }
is allowed, but the order of the class and pseudo-class is not.  Is any 
order allowed, or only element.class:pseudoclass? This should be explicitly 
stated.

6) An example of how to do a drop-cap might be nice.

That's about it for now... :^)

	-Chris
Chris Wilson
cwilso@microsoft.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 1996 12:57:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:43 GMT