- From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:48:32 -0400
- To: ernestcline@mindspring.com
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Ernest Cline wrote: > > > >>[Original Message] >>From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu> >> >>I have to disagree with you, in transclusions you could still add >>class="print_only" (if in your domain) which would still allow the print >>stuff since you do need to handle style="" yourself anyway... >> >>if it goes outside your domain tell those that would wish to do that, >>"this is meant" or you could even add <style>@media .... >> >>in the transclusion parts, and it /will/ work for your code, if >>transclusion across domains is an issue add your site prefix to a root >>element in your transclusion code and using the stylesheet make sure >>your #<site> is part of the selector, as to not interfere with other >>servers. >> >> > >It all depends upon how difficult you wish to make transclusions. >Ideally, it would be possible for one to select an item, and simply >inform your user agent that you want to use it as a transclusion. >Using special class values to handle media types will only work >well in such a scenario if those class values are made to have >a fixed meaning in CSS. That's not something that's going to >happen. If transclusions require authors to do detailed >inspection and editing of their code to avoid potential clashes, >then they will require too much effort to be useful. > > > > > IMHO if it is as simple as that, then only what the author (doing inclusion) will see is what is intended for his current medium, so if you have a print-display none, then he won't see the print part and the print part won't be transcluded... ~Justin Wood
Received on Friday, 21 May 2004 13:50:00 UTC