Re: Issue 1: Font-weight and headings

On Jul 27,  7:25pm, Liam Quinn wrote:

> At 03:42 PM 27/07/97 -0700, Todd Fahrner wrote:

> >Right. So what do y'all say we harness some of the smarts and energy here
> >to produce an exhaustively-specified "default" stylesheet for all HTML 4
> >elements?
>
> I'm not sure that all elements used should have all (applicable) CSS
> properties set.  An exhaustive style sheet would override all (non-
> !important) user styles, which seems to go against the idea of Cascading
> Style Sheets.

If the stylesheet is textually included, yes. If it is @import'ed, not
necessarily. If it is @import'ed and all the rules are of low specificity,
it could be very useful.

That means no #id (unlikely anyway) no class (ditto) and only a single
tag name in each selector. And no !important, obviously. And relative font
sizes, in ems, with BODY set to 1 em.


> As an author, I don't want to have to decide every single style for the
> user.  There are some properties that the user is able to decide better
> than me.

Yes, that is true.

> >Not a "designery" one, but one representing typical
> >out-of-the-box rendering of all HTML elements in the dominant browsers.
> >We'll know we're done when we can't tell whether it's being appled or not
> >(assuming correct CSS implementations, of course, and no changes to user
> >settings).
>
> Then what we're doing is trying to defeat the cascade.

I think not. Rather, the aim seems to be to start the cascade from a known
point.



-- 
Chris Lilley, W3C                          [ http://www.w3.org/ ]
Graphics and Fonts Guy            The World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/people/chris/              INRIA,  Projet W3C
chris@w3.org                       2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 (0)4 93 65 79 87       06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Monday, 28 July 1997 11:35:01 UTC