- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:49:38 +0000
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- CC: Proton Zero <proton.zero@gmail.com>, www-validator-css@w3.org, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Such a tag looks rather bogus to me: using an extra element, purported > to simulate an HTTP header, to specify something redundant. > > More importantly, the W3C CSS Validator seems to ignore it: the <style> > element content still gets discarded. OK, I think that David Dorward has identified the reason for that, in his intervening message; but more importantly, the prose goes on to say "In the absence of an explicit declaration, the default style sheet language is assumed to be CSS.", so with the benefit of hindsight I think that your proposal to the Validator team is justified. But it is not clear why, if "In the absence of an explicit declaration, the default style sheet language is assumed to be CSS.", there is still a mandatory "type" attribute on <style> elements as stated by David : David Dorward wrote: > The type attribute is mandatory for style elements > so that applies only to styles included via the style attribute. Philip Taylor -- Not sent from my i-Pad, i-Phone, Blackberry, Blueberry, or any such similar poseurs' toy, none of which would I be seen dead with even if they came free with every packet of cornflakes.
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 11:50:14 UTC