- From: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr>
- Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:02:51 +0200
- To: jelks@jelks.nu
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Jelks Cabaniss wrote: > > Chris Wilson wrote: > > > There are quite a few problems with using BECSS as a separate linking > > mechanism. The first, of course, is that there is NO standard provision for > > linking them into the document. We would, in essence, end up having to use > > the LINK REL=STYLESHEET > > Looking at the <!ATTLIST LINK ...> declaration in the [x]HTML DTDs shows that > REL has a content of CDATA, there's nothing that says it has to be STYLESHEET. > Why not <link rel="behaviors" type="text/becss" href="foo.becss"> or some such? Yes, why not ? But I'd really like to hear other voices than only yours and mine about this specific point, Jelks. What do other subscribers to this list think ? Can you please all answer to the 3 following questions (mark answer with X)? YES NO QUESTION [ ] [ ] Should CSS and Behavioral Extensions be mergeable in a single file, from a web author's perspective ? [ ] [ ] Should CSS and Behavioral Extensions be mergeable in a single file, from a developer's perspective ? [ ] [ ] Should the text/css mimetype be used for CSS and BECSS ? [ ] [ ] Should we propose instead a new mimetype and a new rel/rev value ? Comments and explanations : Thanks... </Daniel>
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 04:04:08 UTC