Re: CSS vs. transitional markup [was: No Subject]
To: <email@example.com>, "Liam Quinn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: CSS vs. transitional markup [was: No Subject]
From: "David Perrell" <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 15:36:13 -0700
From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Aug 4 18: 42:50 1997
X-Authentication-Warning: www10.w3.org: Host germany-c.it.earthlink.net [22.214.171.124] claimed to be germany.it.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
Liam Quinn wrote:
> Shouldn't FONT be converted into its CSS equivalent, <SPAN
> size: /* some UA-dependent mapping */"> (with a specificity of 1)?
> that case, the FONT element would never be overridden by inherited
What do you mean by "overridden"? If you put <SPAN>this</SPAN> in your
markup, what is the effect on the word "this" if no properties have
been declared for SPAN? The answer is none. There are no default values
for SPAN except display-type, and all applicable values are inherited.
The same is true of FONT. Putting <FONT>this</FONT> in your markup is
perfectly legal, and -- without a CSS1 FONT declaration -- perfectly
useless. Without an explicit property declaration somewhere, there is
SPAN is not the "CSS equivalent" of FONT. They are separate HTML
elements, both with only one declared property, display-type: inline.
> Of course, the CSS1 Recommendation only mentions HTML attributes, not
> elements. Was this by accident, or was dealing with FONT
It isn't necessary. The element is FONT, the HTML attributes are SIZE,
COLOR, and FACE. The CSS1 equivalents for these attributes are
font-size, color, and font-family. FONT is nothing but a delimiter
within which these attributes apply.