Re: style sheets with ancient browsers

Joel N. Weber, II writes:

 > Still, it bothers me that the comments are comments in some places and 
 > have to be ignored in others.  It seems that we're kludging to get 
 > backwords compatibilty, with the net result that 20 years from now, the 
 > rules for comments are going to be ridiculously complex.

Actually, since STYLE is decalred as CDATA a confroming HTML parser
should not look inside it. Supporting <!-- and --> in the CSS grammar
is trivial. Also, we are not changing the rules for comments -- this
is all within the bounds of SGML. (I, like many other people, find
those rules to be less than intuitive, but there we are)

 > > But I would agree with you that LINK is preferable.
 > Can we find a way to write style information in the tags themselves, so 
 > that <STYLE>H1 {color: blue}</STYLE> could be written as
 > <SOMETHING style="H1 {color: blue}">?  Or is that not worthwhile?
 > (Actually, you can do that in <BODY style="H1 {color: blue}">, but we 
 > want to get away from putting everything on the <BODY> tag)

No, you can't do it like you show. The STYLE attribute, when taking
CSS syntax, only accepts CSS declarations -- not full rules:

  <BODY style="color: blue">

The 'color: blue' declaration would apply to the BODY element and
inherit normally from there.

Instead of introducing new syntax in CSS, I'd recommend using LINK to
avoid the problem you are describing.



H      k   o   n      W   i   u   m       L   i   e   W o r l d   Wide  W e b  Consortium
inria # FRANCE

Received on Saturday, 11 January 1997 22:09:44 UTC