- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:04:19 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jun 24, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:15:01 +0200, Håkon Wium Lie > <howcome@opera.com> wrote: >> Also sprach Craig Francis: >> The style element, when scoped to its parent, will be able to do this >> -- and more -- but it is more verbose. > The problem with the style= attribute, as opposed to the <style> > element. Is that it encourages media specific style sheets. As the > media for the style= attribute is automatically "all". It also does > not allow for alternate style sheets. The <style> element in HTML5 > handles both. Having said that, I don't really care strongly either > way. I think the CSS3 WG on the style attribute syntax is actually a more elegant approach (and easier to understand for authors) than the scoped style element. The scoped style element has a lot of opportunities to be misunderstood by implementors and authors alike. I don't think it adds anything that the CSS3 style attribute doesn't already make possible (and some CSS3 is already being implemented by some early-adopter implementations). In contrast, the changes to the style attribute will be easy for everyone to understand. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css-style-attr-20020515> Take care, Rob
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 23:04:25 UTC