- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:52:32 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Kempen, E.J.F. van wrote:
> >
> > [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Asbj?rn Ulsberg
> >
> > While HTML is a semantic markup language, it's not something to ignore
> > that it's mostly used for visual rendering of content, often
> > accompanied by a CSS document. While I'm a strong believer of
> > separation between structure (HTML), presentation (CSS) and
> > functionality (JavaScript), I think it could be useful for the HTML
> > specification to -- within limits -- define how each and every
> > element's default CSS properties and values should be like.
>
> I totally agree with you at the point of the importance of layer
> separation, but I'm not sure about specifying the default CSS values.
> There are a few options:
>
> * let the CSS be built from scratch *
> No styles are defined, so by default the CSS values are empty. I don't
> think this a good option, because people won't define their styles from
> scratch, resulting in vendors still needing to define default styles. So
> that's no solution.
>
> * Vendors keep defining the default values for every element *
> If a web developer disagrees with the vendors, he will just define it in
> his CSS.
>
> * the HTML WG defines default values for every element *
> This can be a solution for HTML as web representation. Defining defaults
> can result in vendors implementing the same defaults, so it looks the
> same in every browser by default. I think it's good to think about these
> things, but I wonder if it would change anything.
>
> What exactly are you looking for? Defining that 'normal' text is black
> by default and links are blue-ish? Because that's done already, most
> default styles are uniformly, but maybe informally, defined. As the new
> HTML spec is gradually being developed, a new document could be written
> about default styles, but I don't think this should be in the new HTML
> spec. I personally think such a complementary document, about the
> default styles, is a good idea. These issues should certainly be
> addressed in cooperation with the CSS WG.
The rendering section now does a mixture of the above.
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Martin Atkins wrote:
>
> One example that springs to mind is that the default CSS rules for
> unordered and ordered lists differ between browsers. Some implement the
> bullets with padding and list-style, while others use margins and
> god-knows-what. I can't really remember anymore. I've just learned that
> the way to get rid of the bullets across all popular browsers is:
>
> ul, ul li {
> margin: 0;
> padding: 0;
> list-style: none;
> }
>
> If you don't set both margin and padding, you'll see inconsistent
> results.
The spec now picks one.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Asbj?rn Ulsberg wrote:
>
> With CSS2.1, how would you style the button you get from an <input
> type="file"> for instance?
<input type=file> is a special case, due to the security aspects.
In general, though, XBL is the only way to get to the bits of a widget,
and that isn't implemented yet.
> > I personally think such a complementary document, about the default
> > styles, is a good idea. These issues should certainly be addressed in
> > cooperation with the CSS WG.
> >
> > Any other thoughts?
>
> If the HTML spec is going to contain informal fragments of Relax-NG, I
> believe there's a place for informal fragments of CSS as well.
It isn't going to have the former. :-) The latter aren't really informal,
they're a kind of half-way-required level.
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> >
> > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#rendering
>
> That saying "when scrolling a page to a fragment identifier, align the
> top of the viewport with the target element's top border edge", seems to
> emphasize my argument. This is a silly requirement.
This is now gone.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Asbj?rn Ulsberg wrote:
>
> Speaking of <hr>, having a default style for it would increase
> interoperability (if only in the presentation layer) a great deal.
Done.
This thread discussed a number of philosophical topics and it wasn't clear
what a lot of it translated to, in terms of practical changes to the spec.
I didn't reply to those bits. Please let me know if I missed some
important feedback that should affect the spec.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 02:52:32 UTC