Re: [whatwg] Default (informal) Style Sheet

2007/4/7, Sander Tekelenburg <>:
> At 12:05 +0200 UTC, on 2007-04-06, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo wrote:
> > 2007/4/6, Sander Tekelenburg <<>>:
> [...]
> ['CSS zapper'
> <
> >]
> > That idea is basically a way for web authors to override the UA defaults
> >and this way overcome the current differences in those defaults
> Right.
> >, but in no
> >way it does assure that the users will get their expected rendering
> because
> >the user could have specified a User Stylesheet.
> By what logic would a user define User CSS  and not expect that to affect
> the
> rendering? (And, as I said earlier, a specced default presentation doesn't
> give that ensurance either.)

I meant: the users won't get the web authors expected rendering. No matter
if there's a common CSS for all UA or not, or if the web author uses a 'CSS
Zapper' or not, the users can specify their own file that will override all
of them.

So the idea of adding a CSS Zapper in every web mean just more Kb to
download, and now people are suggesting this because each UA has some
differences in their default values. If every UA used the same defaults from
the beginning then the idea of a CSS zapper wouldn't had saw the light.

>Having the UA use all of them a common stylesheet will get the same effect
> >that specifying a "CSS zapper", but most important: it will be easier to
> >control the rendering if all the behavior is specified in a css file used
> by
> >the browser.
> Control by whom? (I ask specifically, because on the WHATWG mailing list
> now
> and then people seem to think that control should be moved more from users
> to
> authors, which I thoroughly disagree with.)

By both web authors and users of course, anyone that can put a css file
won't have to guess how to override some styling if you can find it
documented in a single place. And users will be able to use the same User
Stylesheets across different browsers and it will work all the same

Anyway, you seem to be talking here about the problem that some UAs use
> styling that cannot be targeted through CSS. As far as I can see that's a
> different issue altogether. My initial take on that would be that users
> can
> vote with their wallets.

Users just have to choose the lesser evil. Browser A does this, browser B
does that, browser C does that other thing and I can't use browser D as it's
not available in my OS. So they stick just with the one that gives them less
troubles (if they ever notice that they can choose their browser)

Received on Saturday, 7 April 2007 14:01:48 UTC