W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2001

Re: @version rule

From: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:13:57 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <F79GMVJ7AnvcesML51O0000d7d7@hotmail.com>
I would be happy with this.
I'm glad my suggestion is producing a workable solution, even if it wasn't 
the one I originally thought of. (Which I now see wasn't workable)

Jeffrey Yasskin

>From: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
>To: George Lund <G.A.Lund@bigfoot.com>
>CC: www-style@w3.org
>Subject: Re: @version rule
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:53:51 -0400
>
>George Lund wrote:
> >
> > What is needed is a mechanism for grouping CSS rules, such that either
> > they are all rules in the group are applied or none are. This would
> > allow user and author stylesheets to interact without the risk that a
> > setting in one, while not overriding the setting in another, render the
> > page unreadable. The present situation leaves a serious risk of this
> > happening especially when fixed positioning is used.
>
>Seems to me that this would also be entirely consistent with backward
>compatibility; eg:
>
>@combine {
>   selector1 { attr1: val1 };
>   selector2 { attr2: val2 };
>}
>
>If the defined behavior for "@combine" was "either all should succeed or
>all should fail", then it would be interpreted correctly by UAs that
>don't understand @combine: all would fail!
>
>Thoughts? Anyone in the WG think this is an idea worth pursuing, or
>should we all just give up and go home?
>
>Stuart.
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 16:14:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:10 GMT