- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:59:55 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> >
> > (Though <link rel="stylesheet"> could be replaced by <style src=""> --
> > already supported by browsers
>
> I wasn't aware of that being implemented at all, though it would make
> sense to do it just like <script src="">. However, the only browser I
> could find that has implemented it is IE5/Mac, which is obsolete anyway.
> IE6/Win, Opera, Firefox, Camino, Safari, iCab and OmniWeb don't support
> it.
Indeed, apologies. I was mistaken.
> > or obsoleted only for XHTML, in favour of <?xml-stylesheet>, as far as
> > stylesheets go.)
>
> Are there any XHTML UAs that don't support that? If not, I think that
> would be acceptable.
To my knowledge, there are not. But we already established that my
knowledge is limited, qv the <style src> thing. ;-)
> > > <style>@import;</style> could have been an acceptable alternative to link
> > > if IE didn't have annoying bugs with it.
> >
> > It's not like IE doesn't have bugs with <link rel="stylesheet">...
>
> I'm quite sure it does, though I'm not aware of any. But its bugs and
> incomplete support for @import seem worse. For example, IE doesn't
> support media queries on @import, or even apply @media print{}
> stylesheets linked using @import, but does with link. At least with
> <link>, I get relatively predictable behaviour.
Not supporting something isn't a bug.
But in any case, the biggest reason not to drop <link rel="stylesheet">
would be the millions of existing instances of its use. We'll have to keep
<link>, it seems.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 30 December 2005 16:59:55 UTC