- From: Alex Fabrikant <afabrikant@smtpgtwy.ausd.k12.ca.us>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:26:42 -0700
- To: knumb@hotmail.com, www-html@w3.org
>>> "*Nicholas Owens*" <knumb@hotmail.com> 04/24/98 01:23PM >>>
>one of the big adv. of css is its ability to so-called cascade. for
>instance, an entire site may have a basic.css file that covers basic
>stuff such as backgrounds that can be held readily avail. in the user's
>cache, and the particular dept may have it's own dept1.css file that
>would cascadeonto the basic.css file but provide other stuff such as
>font size and line size. that's all well and good and i see alot fo the
>future of that. why can't that be the case in pure html. why can't we
>refer to a file that would specify basic backround stuff or text color,
>to remain in the user-agent's cache, and then have other local files to
>cascade onto said basic.html file? i understand the many other obvious
>adv. that css presents and will phase out my life with html as soon as
>it becomes excepted more.
This appears to be equivalent to the use of an #include-like element discussed here earlier. Refer to prior discussion regarding <INCLUDE> vs. SSI.
--
Alex Fabrikant
afabrikant@ausd.k12.ca.us
!
Received on Friday, 24 April 1998 22:44:15 UTC