- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:10:28 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
On 3/7/12 7:58 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> The last<style scope> is illegal.
To author, yes. The UA processing model needs to be defined anyway.
> Shouldn't a<style scope> that occurs somewhere else, should be without
> effect?
That's not what the spec says right now.
>> 1) Global stylesheets
>> 2) Styles from "a" and "c" (sorted by specificity, etc)
>> 3) !important styles from "b"
>> 4) !important styles from "a" and "c" (sorted by specificity)
>> 5) !important global styles
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> It gives the impression that it is very important to make use of
> '!important', in order to make use of<style scoped> ...
That was just a typo. There should be an entry between (2) and (3)
above, which is normal styles from "b".
> Which makes me wonder: What's the problem<style scope> is supposed to
> solve? Isn't the purpose to *override* the effect of the cascade?
No. For example, I would think that inline style on a node should
override <style scoped>.
> Examples: Imagine we have<foo-root> element as direct child of<body>.
> And imagine that we have a global<style> in the<head> with the
> following rule:
>
> body foo-root {background:red}
>
> Simultaneously, inside a<style scoped> inside the<foo-root>, we have
> this rule:
>
> foo-root{background:lime}
>
> Problem: In this case the global style would win.
Not with my proposal. That's the whole point of my proposal!
-Boris
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 03:10:59 UTC