W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2003

Re: "inherit"

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:44:18 -0700
To: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BB4B10DF.2B6E8%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On 7/28/03 5:04 PM, "Michael Day" <mikeday@yeslogic.com> wrote:

>> 'default' was a proposal that would be like 'inherit' on inherited
>> properties and like 'initial' on non-inherited ones.
> Can that not be a recommendation? I would hate to have to explain the
> difference between these:
>   font-weight: normal
>   font-weight: initial
>   font-weight: inherit
>   font-weight: default
> Keyword overload, and the "default" in particular has a distinctly
> unhelpful meaning.

I agree.

I don't like the use of such a 'default' keyword, I think it adds more
confusion than the problems it allegedly solves.

> I would rather have default be used for what initial is
> currently used for, but if initial is already too entrenched in CSS
> terminology perhaps that is not possible.

I also don't like 'initial'.

Ian wrote:

> In practice, even with properties where it is well defined, UA developers
> have found it useful to have a value that represents the initial value
> independent of what that value actually is.

I strongly disagree, and I am a UA developer.  If a particular UA developer
needs a convenience value, they can simply introduce -vnd-initial or some
such equivalent.

Polluting an *authoring* language for the benefit of UA developers doesn't
make any sense.

Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 20:44:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:08 UTC