- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:14:55 -0500
- To: www-html@w3.org
Mikko Rantalainen wrote: > > I still repeat that I'm not against keeping the style attribute per se, > but I'm against keeping it without a good reason. And I haven't seen > such a reason yet. > > Research report (only a few latest posts) > ----------------------------------------- > > Glazman said that id + CSS had some issue with namespaces. No further > explanation provided. He means, I think, that once you use an ID or a class to associate style with an element, you cannot re-use that ID or class for a different purpose. Therefore, if I need to color one thing red just once, and I must create a class "special" for to style it, I cannot use "special" for any other purpose. If I instead use a style attribute, "special" is not taken and can be used for other things. Therefore, using an ID + CSS rule is not equal to using the style attribute. (Equivalency was the original argument in that thread.) Also, as Boris Zbarsky pointed out, the rules have different specificity so a style attribute will override any other author rules whereas an ID selector wouldn't. As for reasons to keep the style attribute-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2003Jan/0151.html That is, to me, the strongest reason to keep the style attribute. Also, the issue with namespaces only becomes a problem in that context; it's not important in a normal document. Daniel Glazman wrote: > copy and paste preserving the style. Such logic would only make sense if you try use HTML as the back end format of a full-featured word processor instead of a full- featured markup editor. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 16:15:04 UTC