- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 15:20:16 +0200
- To: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- CC: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>, Style <www-style@w3.org>
David Perrell wrote: > > Frank Boumphrey vehemently wrote: > > >>"The UA may choose to honor presentational hints from other sources than > >>style sheets, for example the FONT element or the "align" attribute in > >HTML. > >>If so, the non-CSS presentational hints must be translated to the > >>corresponding CSS rules with specificity equal to zero. The rules are > >>assumed to be at the start of the author style sheet and may be overridden > >>by subsequent style sheet rules." > > > >What this gibberish basically means is that a user agent can choose to > >display styling type tags provided there is no conflicting CSS rule!! Sort of > Close. How about: "A user agent may display HTML element styling attributes, > such as 'align', 'color', and 'face', provided there are no conflicting CSS > rules in the author stylesheet." ? > > >The rest is semantics!! > > I believe that's semantically incorrect. The rest is *gobbledygook*. > Semantics is what remains when the gibberish and gobbledygook are > exclusively-ORed. I believe that is gobbledygook. The wording in the specification is a more precise formulation of whether such hints are to be processed and if so, how; in particular, what happens when there are partially conflicting CSS rules. The wording makes sense when read in conjunction with the specificity and cascading algorithms. The advantage of precise wording is that impleentations can implement the same way and thus, hopefully, give more consistent results. -- Chris Lilley, W3C http://www.w3.org/ Graphics and Stylesheets 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)492 387 987 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 7 August 1998 10:32:12 UTC