Re: CSS vs. transitional markup [was: No Subject]
To: "Douglas Rand" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: CSS vs. transitional markup [was: No Subject]
From: "David Perrell" <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 15:35:08 -0700
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Todd Fahrner" <email@example.com>
From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Aug 1 18: 41:26 1997
X-Authentication-Warning: www10.w3.org: Host iceland-c.it.earthlink.net [184.108.40.206] claimed to be iceland.it.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
Douglas Rand wrote:
> In our browser, the FONT declarations would override the parent.
> decls for the FONT tag itself would first be honored, then the
> attributes. I treat attributes in essentially the same fashion as a
> STYLE attribute.
> So my view is that indeed the inline attributes of the FONT should
> override the parent. For my own implementation it also means that
> style object associated with FONT and any children's style object
> inheriting cannot be cached. Ah well.
You are not in accordance with the spec. From section 3.2, Cascading
The UA may choose to honor other stylistic HTML attributes, for example
'ALIGN'. If so, these attributes are translated to the corresponding
CSS rules with specificity equal to 1. The rules are assumed to be at
the start of the author style sheet and may be overridden by subsequent
style sheet rules. In a transition phase, this policy will make it
easier for stylistic attributes to coexist with style sheets.
Key sentence: "The rules are assumed to be at the start of the author
style sheet and may be overridden by subsequent style sheet rules."
IE3.02 is handling inline HTML properties correctly.