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

RE: LINK'ed style sheets

From: Michael Seaton <bseaton@pobox.com> <bseaton@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'wmperry@spry.com'" <wmperry@spry.com>, "'Gavin Nicol'" <gtn@ebt.com>, "Chris Wilson (PSD)" <cwilso@microsoft.com>, "'knoblock@worldnet.att.net'" <knoblock@worldnet.att.net>, "'www-style@w3.org'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.93.960619160332.19573B-100000@noc.tor.hookup.net>
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Thomas Reardon wrote:
> Are there alternate solutions to this problem that work with the loads
> of existing content out there now?  Thats the problem with growing a
> spec organically, there's all that existing-use. its not a W3C problem,
> its an Internet problem.
> I agree that Netscape and for that matter Microsoft should have just
> eaten the bullet and accepted that downlevel browsers would see crud on
> these tags (SCRIPT and STYLE), but the sense of the community that I've
> read so far is that this is too painful.

One solution is to use linking rather than embedding.  In the case of
style sheets, this is already possible via the <LINK rel=stylesheet> 
mechanism.  I also understand that Netscape originally intended to 
include an optional SRC attribute for <SCRIPT>, which would have made 
it possible to store scripts in a seperate file, but was unable to 
include this in Navigator 2.0 due to production deadlines.  (I am 
unsure whether or not this was incorporated into later releases.)  

> -Thomas Reardon
> Microsoft
Michael Seaton(mseaton@pobox.com)
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 1996 17:48:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:40 UTC