Re: Bidi - HTML vs. CSS

--- Nir Dagan <nir@nirdagan.com> wrote:
[stuff to the effect that HTML formatting attributes do not reduce to CSS]

I would prefer it if each HTML formatting attribute would reduce to a CSS
property (or properties), so that things like CSS vs. HTML specificity
work properly. Personally, block vs. inline distinctions not withstanding
I would like to be able to describe the bidi of an element in terms of CSS
(which could be the result of HTML; for example, dir=ltr is equivalent
direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed).

Although the notion of having a SPAN transformed into a block element
behaving like an inline element and not opening a new level of embeddinbg
might not seem wonderful, it doesn't present any major problems.

Far better IMO to not sully CSS' cascading rules with HTML formatting
attributes.

In particular, since in XML it is not possible to make such distinctions,
it is better to leave CSS alone.



The root cause of these difficulties is the differing models that the two
standards use - CSS could not adopt the HTML approach because it would
require a warped concept of inheritance (mind you all the browsers to date
have implemented a warped (i.e., with bugs (i.e., 'features' that cannot
be described, even with the 'aid' of some nightmare UA-style sheet
hell-bent on destruction of pages)) concept of inheritance (including IE 5
and Mozilla 5 (but not Opera) anyway), and as with many other cases, the
conflicting models do not blend together well.

PS. I hate to think what kind of havoc is caused when elements are
floated; according to CSS this gives them display: block (although this
statement should be ignored because to follow it completely breaks floats).

=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 20:41:01 UTC