W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

Re: 'style' attribute syntax (remarks)

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:23:00 +0200 (EET)
To: W3C CSS <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0402201715120.25121@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Chris Lilley wrote:

> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-style-attr
>
> JKK> I think the only issue with it is: Why hasn't it been officially
> JKK> obsoleted? It just confuses the few people who find it.
>
> Why do that?

Because it's an outdated note floating around, and people find it somehow
may think it's still relevant, maybe read it as official (yeah, it says
it's a note, but people have a great gift of getting things wrong) and
even think it's not just recommended but actually implemented.

> Having a definition of what goes in a style attribute is
> useful, no?

There is such a definition:
"The syntax of the value of the style attribute is determined by the
default style sheet language. For example, for [[CSS2]] inline style, use
the declaration block syntax described in section 4.1.8 (without curly
brace delimiters)."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/styles.html#adef-style

The only vagueness is whether curly braces _can_ be omitted or _must_ be
omitted. It shouldn't take too long to decide on that, especially if you
follow the normal liberal/conservative principle. (Oh, and it should
probably refer to either 4.1 as a whole or to 4.1.7., not 4.1.8.)

Extending the style attribute syntax, in a manner not actually supported
by current browsers, looks rather pointless, especially since you are
simultaneously working on specifications that would make it deprecated or
remove. The note does not extend any specification of course; but its
existence, even as a note, paints the wrong picture.

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 20 February 2004 10:23:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT