W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1997

Re: CSS vs. transitional markup [was: No Subject]

From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:05:05 -0700
Message-Id: <199708042113.OAA24268@germany.it.earthlink.net>
To: "Douglas Rand" <drand@sgi.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Douglas Rand wrote:
> Not the way it's been defined.  That's the problem.  They did this
> nasty thing in the definition you posted - they placed the properties
> *between* the UA and the author's stylesheet.  I'm not convinced that
> elements like FONT can even work with that definition.  It looks to
me
> as if *any* font-family property will turn off FONT FACE, or
font-size
> turns off FONT SIZE,  even if the properties are for a parent
element, 
> e.g. BODY or HTML.

Why would any font-family property turn off FONT FACE? A declared
property takes precedence over an inherited one, even if the
declaration is of lowest possible weight.

As for precedence, I see what you mean. I think the spec should be
changed. HTML attributes should be positioned lowest in the relative
weight heirarchy. This means a user will be able to override an
author's HTML ALIGN property in their stylesheet, but so what? All an
author need do is duplicate the inline HTML attribute with a CSS
property to insure precedence.

David Perrell
Received on Monday, 4 August 1997 17:13:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:51 GMT