W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2002

Re: CSS 2.1 WD and non-CSS presentational hints

From: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:00:59 -0400
Message-ID: <3D74CEAB.1080900@netreach.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

fantasai wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
>>I don't understand why I would want to override the default UA rendering
>>of <strong>, but not the default UA rendering of <font color="obnoxious">.
>>In fact, I imagine I would want to override <font> a lot _more_ than I
>>would want to override <strong>.
> 
> 
> That's what user !important is for. I imagine that you would want to
> override <span style="color: obnoxious"> just as much as <font
> color="obnoxious"> and I don't imagine that you care whether or not
> the author specified the color with CSS.

Right. In my proposal, user-stylesheet !important is still way, way up 
above UA-!important.

The logic is pretty much like what fantasai said: that <font>, <center>, 
<b> etc are pretty much equivalent <span> or <div> with a particular 
style= attribute, from a user's perspective. From an author's 
perspective it makes sense to treat them differently (for example, 
because of browser support issues) but from a user's standpoint they are 
equivalent.

It's easy for me to imagine, for example, that a user with poor eyesight 
might want to use colored text instead of bold and italics for emphasis, 
since bold and italics often decrease legibility. But if the document 
author specifically asked for bold, that might just be for stylistic 
reasons (the legacy-browser equivalent of ".navItem { font-weight: bold 
}" was to put individual <b> tags around everything) in which case you 
probably don't want to color that differently, because such things are 
usually inside colored boxes anyway and the colors are much more likely 
to clash.

Stuart.


-- 
Stuart Ballard, Programmer
NetReach - Internet Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126
http://www.netreach.com/
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 11:01:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:16 GMT