Re: CSS 2.1 WD and non-CSS presentational hints

Also sprach Coises:
 > [Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:50:29 +0200] Håkon Wium Lie:
 > >To praphrase, you're saying it is a mistake to downgrade the weight of
 > >presentational hints from "the start of the author style sheet" (which
 > >CSS2 specifies) to be equal to the "user agent's default style sheet"
 > >(which is used in CSS 2.1 and CSS 3)?
 > That is exactly what I'm saying

Good, so we agree on where we're disagreeing.

 > The proposed
 > change doesn't change the interpretation of presentational attributes, it
 > changes the interpretation of the user style sheet: and it does so in a
 > thoroughly illogical way.  It would mean that the effect of a user style
 > sheet would depend on *how* presentation is specified in the document.
 > I see no reason that a user (that is who user style sheets are for, right?)
 > should need to know or care whether an author used HTML 4.01 presentational
 > attributes or a CSS style sheet to achieve a particular effect.

By loweing the weight of presentations hints, we increase the weight
of user styles sheets. We make it easier for users to write style
sheets that influence the presentation of documents. We also signal to
authors that deprecated features may actually go away one day.

In support of your argument, however, I would add that it doesn't
become that much easier (typing "!important" isn't too hard) and it's
no longer possible for users who *wants* presentational attributes to
be in effect to have a user style sheet.

 > If you want to "eradicate the use of presentational attributes" (something
 > that will never be accomplished for legacy pages --- people won't re-write
 > them just because the "politically correct" way to code has changed) then
 > you must provide authors with a compellingly easier and more effective way
 > to accomplish their tasks.  That will do it (in time); nothing else will.

This is exactly what CSS is about.

I believe the request for a change came from another W3C Working
Group. Thanks for raising the issue, we may need to go ponder for a

              Håkon Wium Lie                          cto °þe®ª        

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 07:23:35 UTC