- From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:06:46 -0400
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
> A new working draft was just published: > > CSS3 module: W3C selectors > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-CSS3-selectors-19990803 It's good to see this. Question: there's a caveat under the example "E.warning" that says "HTML only". XML, unlike with IDs, has no "built-in" notation of *class*. But is there any real reason for CSS *excluding* recognition of class in XML, in other words -- providing automatic recognition of class (or CLASS) regardless of the semantics of the markup language in question? Reason: dot notation for class as used in HTML+CSS is so convenient, that I imagine it will be highly requested by authors of XML-based documents and implemented by the browser manufacturers, regardless of its official status: message.alert display: block; color: red; font-size: 4em; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: blink; } ... <para>Bin Laden's message of the day: <message class="alert">Vacate premises. Incoming US missiles!</message> <para> Of course you can do the same with message[class="alert"] or using other attributes. But would it do *harm* to have a CSS '.attval' represent a shorthand of '[class="attval"]' -- even if it's not in HTML/XHTML, where CLASS has a certain semantic? /Jelks
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 1999 15:08:23 UTC