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

Re: Suggestion: Inheritance

From: Hans Meiser <brille1@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:15:10 +0000
Message-ID: <BAY107-F15FFF58589DC74960E9149E2060@phx.gbl>
To: www-style@w3.org

Thanks for replying. I see.

I also see a widespread urge to add back-references or similar to the 
standard, because there indeed *are* other, similar suggestions.

Moreover, I see a huge advantage considering the applications I've 
mentioned, particularly in adding object oriented design to CSS. 
Technologies like ASP.NET would win much liberty from it as designers would 
be able to create web controls and other implementors could use them as a 
black box - which they can't currently.

This is the lack I see in the current specification.


---------------------
>From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
>To: www-style@w3.org
>Subject: Re: FW: Re: Suggestion: Inheritance
>Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:03:48 +0100 (BST)
>
>
> >
> >
> > There don't seem to occur any further technical objections against my
> > back-reference proposal. I'm not acquainted with the process of bringing
>
>That doesn't mean that people accept it, only that they have aired
>the objections that they have.  I am not convinced that the added
>complexity of the language is offset by sufficient benefit, given that
>the feature will not be usable on the public internet for many years,
>because only real enthusiasts use the latest (non IE) browsers.
>
> > this idea further now. Can someone please enlighten me on what is the 
>next
> > step in suggesting back-reference to CSS3?
>
>Your next steps are either to become a paid up member of W3C or convince
>a paid up member (probably a major browser implementor, who is prepared to
>implement ahead of standardisation).  Failing that, you need to implement 
>the
>feature yourself, or otherwise fully specify it to standards quality.  
>Other
>than that, you can assume that people with voting rights have seen the
>suggestion and will decide whether or not it offers anything that 
>previously
>rejected "variables" and "macros" proposals didn't.
>
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 09:15:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:37 GMT