- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:11:09 +0200
- To: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, Lachlan Cannon <luminosity@members.evolt.org>
On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, 5:05:18 PM, Stuart wrote: SB> How about this: SB> "Any aspect of the markup which explicitly indicates a preferred SB> rendering, AND does not carry any other semantics". Yes, that is a lot clearer. SB> This would cover <center>, align="left", <br>, <pre>, <font>, etc. All SB> the usual suspects. The trouble with those is that their rendering semantics are often not clearly defined. So getting "the same rendering" is not always easy. But yes, it would cover those,and it would cover for example stuff produced by XSLT. SB> <em> and <strong> indicate a preferred rendering, but they do so SB> *implicitly* due to historical use, rather than *explicitly* as required SB> by the proposed definition. Also, they carry additional semantics: emphasis. Yes. SB> We might need an explicit exemption for the style= attribute, which SB> otherwise would qualify based on this definition, good catch, all the more so since CSS 2.1 proposes to give it the highest possible specificity thus disabling all possible restyling further down the line. SB> and that would be SB> wrong. Perhaps "Document languages may provide mechanisms for explicitly SB> including CSS stylesheets within the document, such as HTML's "style=" SB> attribute. Such mechanisms are NOT considered 'non-CSS presentational SB> hints'." Yes, that would be a useful clarification. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 17:11:18 UTC