- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 23:03:20 -0500 (EST)
- To: w3c-wai-hc@w3.org (HC team)
to follow up on what Hakon Lie said:
> 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.
>
> and Hakon Lie responds:
> I don't see the difference. In both cases the cascade order will be:
>
> user important
> author important
> author normal
> user normal
>
ASG:: The way I was interpreting "only has effect when used
within a user's stylesheets" I think that you would rather get
user important
author important | author normal
user normal
as opposed to the four-step priority scheme. That is the
difference that I perceived.
On the other hand, if we add !required and give the user
the edge in resolving !required conflicts we get something
like:
user required
author required
author important
user important
author normal
user normal
browser default
Is that the new-keyword option, give or take?
-- Al
Received on Friday, 19 December 1997 23:03:44 UTC