- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:09:40 -0500
- To: abigail@uk.fnx.com
- CC: www-html@w3.org
From: Abigail <abigail@uk.fnx.com> | > Well, like anything else, the 'last defined' colour should be the | > over-riding one. | > | > It's as simple as that, isn't it??? | | Uhm, no. That would mean the order of attributes is important. | It might be that SGML says it is, but I have never heard of it. | I would image implementations of HTML parsers differ wether | order of attributes is important or not. If I were to make a | parser, I'd put attributes of an element in an associative | array - which usually loses the order. --- The order of SGML attributes is not the issue - the issue is the interplay between SGML attributes and CSS1 properties. The text of CSS1 is reasonably clear: | A 'STYLE' attribute on an element (see section 1.1 for an example) | should be considered as if an ID attribute had been specified at the end | of the style sheet. | | The UA may choose to honor other stylistic attributes (e.g. 'ALIGN') as | if a 'STYLE' attribute had been used. When in conflict with other | stylistic attributes, the 'STYLE' attribute should win. In a formal standard I would expect balloting to have determined whether that "should" was simply sloppy (and was intended to mean "shall") or whether it was intentionally making the text non-normative. scott -- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 1996 16:11:25 UTC