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

RE: [css3-cascade] Rolling back the cascade

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 03:42:09 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F017829033586CF@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[L. David Baron:]
> 
> On Monday 2011-10-31 12:06 -0700, fantasai wrote:
> > And would that be more, less, or equally useful as a value that simply
> > means ''initial''/''inherit'' (depending on whether the property
> inherits by default)?
> > That idea was proposed by dbaron here:
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2002OctDec/0191.html

> 
> For the record, that message was:
> 
> # From: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu> # Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002
> 17:15:55 -0400 # To: w3c-css-wg@w3.org # Message-ID:
> <20021020171555.A22654@is01.fas.harvard.edu>
> #
> # Would it be useful to have a 'default' value, defined to be equivalent #
> to 'inherit' for properties that are inherited by default and equivalent #
> to 'initial' for properties that are not inherited by default?  This #
> might be easier for authors to use than 'initial' and 'inherit' since it #
> wouldn't require thinking about whether a property is inherited by #
> default or not (which isn't obvious for some properties, such as # text-
> decoration and visibility).
> #
> # -David
> #
> # --
> # L. David Baron        <URL: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/ >
> 
> -David
> 
David's approach seems both useful and friendlier to the general author
population. 

Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 03:42:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT