- From: Chris Wilson (PSD) <cwilso@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:44:26 -0700
- To: "'lauren@sqwest.bc.ca'" <lauren@sqwest.bc.ca>, "'preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com'" <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Cc: "'www-style@w3.org'" <www-style@w3.org>, "'html-erb@w3.org'" <html-erb@w3.org>
Scott Preese wrote:
>>Hmm. Presumably the normal cascade order applies for determining which
>>applies, but there is a wrinkle: the spec doesn't seem to say clearly
>>how pseudo-elements are counted in the specificity calculation. If you
>>assume they count the same as other elements, and the other factors are
>>the same, then whichever came last in the STYLE specification would
>>apply.
I would presume they work like pseudoclasses, which are equivalent to
class in the specificity calculation (at least, they are in IE - I
believe I reached this understanding with the W3C folks before I
implemented).
>
>>Note, by the way, that the spec does indicate how to handle "order of
>>appearance" for STYLE attributes - they are appended at the end of the
>>STYLE element (but since they are specified as if by ID, they would
>>presumably be most-specific in any case).
Where does the spec say that? I looked through the current working
draft on CSS [1] and the embedding style working draft [2], and didn't
see where it said they were treated as if they were appended at the end
of the STYLE element (as if they were linked via ID). Perhaps this
issue should be strictly defined - that is not how MSIE applies the
style properties applied via a STYLE attribute (anything inside a STYLE
attribute on an element is immediately applied to the element, before
anything else. Otherwise, it could be overridden by a rule with a
higher specificity (e.g., "#ID1 #ID2 {}" ), which doesn't seem intuitive
at all).
[1]: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-css1.html
[2]: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-style.html
> -Chris
>Chris Wilson
>cwilso@microsoft.com
>-[-
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 1996 15:48:33 UTC