Re: CSS vs. transitional markup [was: No Subject]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 03:36 PM 04/08/97 -0700, David Perrell wrote:
>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"?
I mean that the font size specified in <FONT SIZE=7> would not be
overridden by a font-size property on the FONT's parent element.
>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.
Sorry, I guess I view <FONT SIZE=7> the same as <SPAN SIZE=7>. I did not
intend mean to suggest, however, that UAs should apply SPAN rules to FONT
>> 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.
Okay, that's probably a good way to look at it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
=============== http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Eliam/ ===============
Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
====== PGP Key at http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Eliam/pgp.html =====