- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:28:58 +0200
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- CC: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
Murray Maloney schrieb: > > At 11:18 PM 5/17/2007 +0200, Dão Gottwald wrote: > >> Sure, just like style rules for [role~="foo"] are connected to the >> semantics of an element with the "foo" role. The crux is /default/ >> style sheet. > > I'm confused. Or maybe I just don't understand what point you are making. Chris Adams wrote: "So if the CSS engine defines defaults for class names that is wonderful but not really a task left up for the HTML folks." I'm saying that default styles won't be defined for classes, as that would cause mass confusion and break existing page layouts. So the question whether this should be done here or in the CSS WG doesn't even arise. > However, <i class="shipname">Titanic</i> could get you both a default style > and an understandable semantic. But that default style wouldn't be applied due to the class name. --Dao
Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 12:29:11 UTC