Re: stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute

• To: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
• Subject: Re: stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute
• From: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>
• Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 10:45:43 -0700
• CC: www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
• From www-style-request@www10.w3.org Sun Sep 7 13: 45:53 1997
• Message-ID: <3412E847.12C0263@sgi.com>
• Organization: Silicon Graphics
• References: <199709062231.SAA24303@melange.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
• Sender: drand@sgi.com
• X-List-URL: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Archives/Public/www-style/
• X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.3 IP32)

Joel N. Weber II wrote:
>...
> A correct solution would have been to use style-type as an attribute
> name.  So I think it would be good to design browsers to look at
> style-type if it exists, type otherwise, and the default provided
> by HTTP or the META HTTP-EQUIV tag if no attribute specifies the type.
> 
> Comments?

I think this is not the right solution.  We could end up with
a forest of -type attributes like style-type, script-type, maybe
others.

Why can't a single declaration at the top of the document declare
the style language being used?  Have I missed a proposal to allow
users to specify the style content per element?  That would be a
very bad thing from a browser maker's point of view.

Doug
-- 
Doug Rand				drand@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics/SSO			http://reality.sgi.com/drand
Disclaimer: These are my views,  SGI's views are in 3D

• Re: stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute
• From: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
• Re: stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute
• From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>

• stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute
• From: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>

• Prev: Re: stupid multiple definitions for the TYPE attribute
• Next: Re: Any way to make a non-blocktype element block-type
• Index: Message index of www-style@w3.org mailing list
• Thread: Thread index of www-style@w3.org mailing list