- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 03:53:28 -0800
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
On 12/14/02 3:20 AM, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> At this point I see more value in not breaking at least two
>> implementations that have been (arguably) compliant with this
>> portion of the spec for quite some time, rather than allowing for a
>> theoretical only useful ability to extend CSS to allow blocks on the
>> property side.
>
> At this point I see more value in not breaking at least three
> implementations (including the market leader)
If you are referring to IE6/Windows, the original example given:
p { color : green ; q{color : blue ; }
samp { color : red ; }
renders the paragraph green and the samp red, and thus the style sheet is
being treated consistently with the interpretation I provided:
p { color : green }
samp { color : red }
rather than
p { color : green ;
q {color : blue ; }
samp { color : red ; }
Do you have another example that demonstrates otherwise?
> that have been
> (arguably) compliant with this portion of the spec for quite some
> time,
certainly not as long a time.
And given the minimal (if any) utility of allowing blocks mixed with the
property, it makes more sense to disallow them.
> Thus I would prefer the spec to explicitly state that blocks should be
> parsed on the property side just like they are anywhere else.
Or we could just decide to never introduce blocks on the property side (no
big loss), and leave the spec as is (which arguably allows for two
interpretations as this thread has shown), and leave it
unspecified/ambiguous what this non-valid snipped of code is expected to do
in a UA.
Tantek
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 06:38:50 UTC