W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: FAQ about reasons behind CSS

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:16:38 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105070106167c8db285@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 7/1/05, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> 
> Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> 
> > And this was an argument against the claim that CSS has design
> > constract "Incremental rendering (no reflow)".
> 
> I didn't claim that it was perfect, see item no. 4 at:
> http://www.grauw.nl/articles/css-faq.php#selectors-restrictions
> 
> Actually, I do not understand the reasons for including these selectors
> in CSS3, the're not that useful, but ah well. Seems like in CSS3 the
> 'avoid reflows' (which I have changed just now) is less important. But
> be that as it may be, incremental rendering is still a base for the
> design of CSS features, and only broken when the functionality cannot be
> achieved without sacrificing incremental rendering.
> 
> I would like however for there to be a clear indication in CSS3 when
> features harm incremental rendering.
> 
> The point of this line is: if you look at how CSS works and the choices
> that were made, you will see them being designed for incremental
> rendering all the time. It also means that proposals which take
> incremental rendering in account have a higher chance of being adopted
> than ones which don't.

Seriously why are they necessary? This is a problem created by
non-semantic tables, not by actual need. HTML tables are still
presentational and therefore this need for nth-last-of-child() is
because HTML tables are presentational. Get them to fix it, leave CSS
alone.

Orion Adrian
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 13:23:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT