W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-hc@w3.org > October to December 1997

Re: CSS 2: priorities in cascading order

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:12:01 +0100
Message-Id: <199712221412.PAA00232@www47.inria.fr>
To: w3c-wai-hc@w3.org


>  > I would favour a key word such as "!required" rather than
>  > "!accessibility".
> 
> No, in many cases the UA will have to approximate values specified in
> CSS declarations. The word "required" implies that if the demand can't
> be met, something drastic will happen -- e.g. the page will not be
> shown. This, in my mind, is incompatible with improving access to
> information.
> 
> I think "accessibility" is a little better, but not much. How about
> "x-important" in the good tradition of T-shirts?

x-important sounds too much like it's important but not yet approved
by IANA :-)

How about: "paramount" , or "supreme" or "eminent", or "highest"
Received on Monday, 22 December 1997 09:12:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:12 UTC