W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2011

Re: [css3-cascade] Browser extension style sheets and the cascade

From: Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:43:52 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinn-N68bBH_icKah3aUuabVbF2L8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
> > The CSS specs, however, don’t seem to be clear—please correct me if
> > I’m wrong—about what origin such style sheets are considered to have,
> > or where these style sheets have to be seen when it comes to order of
> > appearance.
>
> Isn't that up to the browser and/or extension?
>
> […] If an extension wants to apply CSS to pages, it should, imo, be
> free to put it in the right cascade level depending on what that CSS is
> doing.
>
> As a simple example, ad-blocking CSS probably belongs in the user level.
> But CSS for implementing a subset of MathML functionality in a browser with
> no native MathML support belongs in the UA level.

That does not convince me yet that inevitably, this has to be a user
agent decision. Neither am I convinced yet that this situation is
actually beneficial for extension authors, authors, or even users (who
will need to maintain the possibility of having the last say on
styling, no matter how few people actually use user style sheets).

User agent documentation might—should—clarify on how extension style
sheets are handled precisely but any usefulness of such documentation
appears to diminish increasingly when you move from extension authors
to authors to users.

Back to why the spec may help, isn’t this problem a very valid and
real CSS use case that would be particularly useful for implementors
to have covered? So far I wouldn’t understand why a blind spot in the
spec would be in any way beneficial.

-- 
Jens O. Meiert
http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 16:44:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT