- From: Drazen Kacar <Drazen.Kacar@public.srce.hr>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 16:01:25 +0100 (MET)
- To: MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU (Foteos Macrides)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Foteos Macrides wrote:
> Drazen.Kacar@public.srce.hr (Drazen Kacar) wrote:
> >[...] You'll need a stack machine for that,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >but you need it for style sheets anyway.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Is that really true?
I think I don't have the latest version of CSS draft, but this part should
be the same:
---
1.6 Context-sensitive selectors
[...]
UL LI { font-size: small }
UL UL LI { font-size: x-small }
Here, the first selector matches 'LI' elements with at least one 'UL' ancestor.
The second selector matches a subset of the first, i.e. 'LI' elements with at
least two 'UL' ancestors. The conflict is resolved by the second selector
being more specific due to the longer search pattern. See the cascading order
(section 3.2) for more on this.
[...]
---
Tags in example are UL, which you have to count anyway, but any other tag can
be substituted there. You have to know how deep nesting is and which tags nest
and in which order if you want to resolve this kind of things.
> Could this be why Netscape has been so
> slow to implement style sheets? Will Netscape v4 have problems with
> all the interdigitated tags that have become an epidemic on the Web
> by virtue of the > v4 versions not being bothered by them?
Beats me... :)
--
Life is a sexually transmitted disease.
dave@fly.cc.fer.hr
dave@zemris.fer.hr
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 1996 10:03:05 UTC