Al Gilman writes: > > 'Option 1' I take to be that which changes the definition of > > !important; so that it only has effect when used within a > > reader's style sheet (any use of !important; in an author's > > style sheet would thus be ignored, and the author's rules would > > all have normal weight, thereby giving precedence to the > > reader's explicitly important rules). This is the option which > > I prefer. > > Is it really necessary to nullify all use of !important by the author? > Would it be sufficient if > > a) a !important asserted by the user beats a !important > asserted before the document got to the user. I don't see the difference. In both cases the cascade order will be: user important author important author normal user normal > b) a !important beats any level of specificity. It already does. Check cascade rule #2 vs #4 in [1] [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#cascading-order > ?? no? Regards, -h&kon H å k o n W i u m L i e howcome@w3.org http://www.w3.org/people/howcome World W i d e Web ConsortiumReceived on Friday, 19 December 1997 17:34:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:01 UTC