W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2011

[Bug 14491] 'script' and 'style' are not consistent. 'script' have a 'src' attribute, but 'style' does not have a 'src' attribute. If the 'script' element is the cousin of 'style', then why doesn't both none of them have the src attribute? 'link' is used to load styl

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:50:18 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RHgeA-00052j-Gw@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14491

Lars Gunther <webmaster@keryx.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |webmaster@keryx.se

--- Comment #3 from Lars Gunther <webmaster@keryx.se> 2011-10-22 18:50:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Do you mean that there is deployed content that depends on style not having a
> 'src' attribute? This addition provides the consistency which the bug author
> intends and is a new attribute so shouldn't affect currently deployed content.

There is a lot more to it than that. Where would such content fit in the
cascade? 
And how would src-attribute provided content relate to styles provided within
the HTML between the tags? Legacy browsers would ignore the src attribute an
use thos rules, but that's very inconsistent compared to the script element
that ignores the element content if a src attribute is provided.

And then there is the issue of polyfills. To write the in a way that ensures a
propwer cascading order is nigh impossible.

This is actually a quite large addition to browser parsing algotithms for no
benefit except purity of style, which is not really that valuable.

We can link to external stylesheets already. Use case solved and it is not THAT
hard to learn how to do it. Trust me, I teach this to newbies for a living.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 18:50:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:06 UTC