Re: CSS vs. transitional markup [was: No Subject]
To: "Chris Wilson (PSD)" <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: Re: CSS vs. transitional markup [was: No Subject]
From: "David Perrell" <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 22:14:28 -0700
From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Aug 5 01: 20:43 1997
X-Authentication-Warning: www10.w3.org: Host iceland-c.it.earthlink.net [22.214.171.124] claimed to be iceland.it.earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
Chris Wilson (PSD) wrote:
> Then are no conflicts between the things you label UA defaults and
> inline HTML attributes, so their order doesn't matter.
Not everyone will find it intuitive to lump default properties and
user-defined attributes, even if they don't conflict.
Wouldn't the CSS1 spec be clearer if the inline attributes were defined
as having least weight? This definition seems most likely to "make it
easier for stylistic attributes to coexist with style sheets". Not only
would it bring your handling of the cascade into spec, it would also
help alleviate implementation nightmares for Doug Rand -- nightmares
that can cause severe sleep deprivation and bloated, inefficient code.