W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1998

Re: Style sheet and Netscape

From: Sue Jordan <sjacct@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 16:42:26 -0400
Message-ID: <35C77232.D72837FF@worldnet.att.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
David Perrell wrote:
> 
> Sue Jordan wrote:

> ...these attributes are translated to the corresponding CSS
> >rules with specificity equal to 1. The rules are assumed to be at the
> >start of the author style sheet and may be overridden by subsequent
> >style sheet rules."
> >
...
> Overridden by what? 

Subsequent style sheet rules, says the cite.

> Only the color property for BODY was defined in the
> stylesheet in the original example. The FONT element was an offspring of
> BODY, and its color declaration would therefore override it.

YM <FONT> will not be translated to the corresponding CSS
rules with specificity equal to 1? 

> Assuming the
> FONT color declaration to be at the start of the stylesheet, the style
> declarations become:
> 
>   FONT { color: gray }
>   BODY { color: blue }

Oh. So <FONT> _will_ be translated to the corresponding CSS
rules with specificity equal to 1? 
 
> FONT is not in conflict with the original poster's style declaration, 

The attribute values conflict, unless blue=red.

> and the above declaration should produce 4.x Navigator's rendering.

IMO, the first declaration you show would be ignored;  I've never seen
anything like that style declaration. How about:

    BODY { color: gray }
    BODY { color: blue }

> If the poster wants to insure that 4.x Navigator will render the FONT
> element in blue, then his actual style declarations should be:
...

If the poster wants to insure that any CSS aware browser renders the
font element in blue, then he could always declare:

P.specialcaseofblue {color: blue; background: transparent;} 

and use it when he needs it.

> For some reason a lot of people have a hard time seeing FONT as just another
> inline element, subject to the same style rules.

For some reason, words contained in style rules are subject to different
interpretations by different people. That's why we discuss them here,
right?

BTW, Braden's argument has the same substance as yours, so I'll only
reply to this message.

Sue "let's debate semantics" Jordan
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 1998 16:45:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:55 GMT