- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:08:08 -0800
- To: "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>, py8ieh=mozilla@bath.ac.uk, www-html@w3.org
- Cc: dsr@w3.org, ij@w3.org, lehors@w3.org
L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@fas.harvard.edu] wrote: >Chris Wilson (cwilso@MICROSOFT.com) wrote: >> ...there are a VERY large number of documents that include more than one >> STYLE element. > >Yes, but how many of them have TITLE attributes? That's the only >question relevant to analyzing Ian's proposal. I would guess almost >none, since currently the TITLE attribute doesn't "do" anything. What a waste. You have a variety of choices for how to implement this functionality in a way that does not break backward compatibility - in fact, I gave you a way to do so that I chose two years ago explicitly so that it would not cause this problem - and you insist that the right way to do this is a way that would screw backward compatibility for those of us who have already invested in CSS. >I strongly support Ian's proposal. If one sees one of the purposes for >embedded stylesheets as overriding rules in a linked stylesheet (as >I do), then it could be very useful. And I did not state that was not a useful mechanism. In fact, I found it so useful I implemented a way to do it two years ago. >My opinion on Ian's question, BTW, is that his proposal in no way >disagrees with the current HTML specification. HTML, as it exists >today, does not describe when the contents of the STYLE element are to >be used. Fine, then you can make the HTML specification an even less realistic and useful specification in the future by steadfastly refusing to not destroy backward compatibility. -Chris Wilson
Received on Thursday, 4 November 1999 18:22:27 UTC