- From: Benjamin C. W. Sittler <bsittler@prism.nmt.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:39:11 -0700 (MST)
- To: cwilso@microsoft.com
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 8 Dec 1995 cwilso@microsoft.com wrote: > h&kon wrote: > > - should one also allow the more verbose versions (CLASS=foo, > > ID=x67y) in CSS1? > > I still think it should be [CLASS=foo], [ID=bar]. I would be okay with > dropping them from CSS1, but since they will still be in CSS2, perhaps they > should be kept. > > > - what do people prefer, > > -- #x65y or "x56y" ? > > #x65y. Definitely. Using quotes in a way that has a syntactic meaning > (other than encapsulation) is pretty anti-intuitive. The form #"x65y" should be equivalent to #x65y. "x65y" should be equivalent to x65y, that is, SGML element X65Y. That way authors don't get confused by quotes meaning one thing (ID shortcut) in the pattern part and another thing (string, possibly with funny characters) in the rule part. > > -- @CLASS=foo or [CLASS=foo] ? > > [CLASS=foo], definitely. The encapsulation seems very valuable to me, and > to throw it away for the sake of typing an extra character seems ludicrous, > especially if the other current argument is over whether we should force > dozens of characters to be typed to abstract style information. Benjamin C. W. Sittler
Received on Friday, 8 December 1995 16:41:35 UTC