On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > Reading this, I come to the conclusion that mark-up specific CSS > properties are a problem, CSS should only apply to all mark-up languages > or none? and no naming strategy will solve this? Markup-specific properties are possible, but I certainly wouldn't encourage them. They have a high cost to implement, as I noted. (They have to be parsed and cascadable for every element even if no elements of their namespace are used.) > > Personally, for many of the above properties I think that would be > > much better. For example, the 'focusable' property doesn't seem like > > something you'd want to change from a stylesheet. > > I agree, not having these as CSS properties would be an excellent idea. > Unfortunately there is then a consistency problem with some properties as > both properties and some as CSS, how would you suggest resolving this? As I > do not think that is appropriate. SVG already has the distinction between attributes that are cascaded properties ('fill') and those that are not ('x'). I don't see the problem. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 20:11:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:54:53 GMT