- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:17:50 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> On 22 Jun 2015, at 21:23, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 4:26 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> The problem with ua-default or any such thing is that it's only >> correct terminology for the effect when it's used in a user-level >> style sheet. If it's used in a author- or user-level style sheet, >> it does not return the value to the UA default value. > > I am 100% okay with ua-default being "incorrect" in author-level style > sheets. In practice, it *is* correct 99+% of the time, and when it's > not, *the distinction doesn't matter*. As far as the author is > concerned, the user and UA style sheets are part of the same thing - > "the styles underneath me". > > We're never going to provide a value to authors that *does* > distinguish between user and UA (it would be user-hostile), so it > doesn't actually matter that this is technically pointing to the wrong > place in the origin hierarchy. Right, so I don't object to ua-default. I just don't prefer it. Also, walk to a random css author, and ask what a "UA" is. I don't think it's the best name we can pick. But if that's the one everybody wants, I'll live :) - Florian
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 20:18:21 UTC