- From: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:00:59 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>>I don't understand why I would want to override the default UA rendering
>>of <strong>, but not the default UA rendering of <font color="obnoxious">.
>>In fact, I imagine I would want to override <font> a lot _more_ than I
>>would want to override <strong>.
>
>
> That's what user !important is for. I imagine that you would want to
> override <span style="color: obnoxious"> just as much as <font
> color="obnoxious"> and I don't imagine that you care whether or not
> the author specified the color with CSS.
Right. In my proposal, user-stylesheet !important is still way, way up
above UA-!important.
The logic is pretty much like what fantasai said: that <font>, <center>,
<b> etc are pretty much equivalent <span> or <div> with a particular
style= attribute, from a user's perspective. From an author's
perspective it makes sense to treat them differently (for example,
because of browser support issues) but from a user's standpoint they are
equivalent.
It's easy for me to imagine, for example, that a user with poor eyesight
might want to use colored text instead of bold and italics for emphasis,
since bold and italics often decrease legibility. But if the document
author specifically asked for bold, that might just be for stylistic
reasons (the legacy-browser equivalent of ".navItem { font-weight: bold
}" was to put individual <b> tags around everything) in which case you
probably don't want to color that differently, because such things are
usually inside colored boxes anyway and the colors are much more likely
to clash.
Stuart.
--
Stuart Ballard, Programmer
NetReach - Internet Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126
http://www.netreach.com/
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 11:01:03 UTC