- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:32:31 -0700
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
On 8/12/02 10:41 PM, "Coises" <Randy@Coises.com> wrote: > > [Mon, 05 Aug 2002 06:08:42 -0700] I wrote: >> In this section: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/changes.html#q74 >> the "CSS 2.1 Specification" working draft states: >> >> || If presentational hints from other sources than CSS are taken >> || into account by a UA, it must treat them as having the same weight >> || as the user agent's default style sheet. >> >> which is essentially the same as "CSS3 module: Cascading and inheritance" >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-cascade-20020219/#computing>: >> >> || If the user agent chooses to honor presentational hints from other >> || sources than style sheets, these hints must be given the same weight >> || as the user agent's default style sheet. This rule is intended for >> || presentational hints in HTML. Note that non-CSS presentational hints >> || had a higher weight in CSS2. >> >> >> I cannot grasp the logic of this. It seems to me to be a great mistake. > > > Can't anyone explain the rationale behind this change? > If not, then why is it being changed? It still seems that folks are very much confused about this change. (So perhaps we need to simply reword the text to be more clear!) Reread that last sentence quoted from CSS 2.1 above: "Note that non-CSS presentational hints had a higher weight in CSS2." This means that <FONT> 'bgcolor' etc. have LESS weight in CSS2.1. This is a good thing. This is what users/authors want (CSS _should_ override legacy non-CSS presentational hints). And this is what has been implemented. Thanks, Tantek
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 13:23:40 UTC