- From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:16:58 +0100 (MET)
- To: "W3C CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
The '!important' rule example [1] doesn't seem to be chosen well, CMIIW: At
first, the assertion 'However, the third rule in the user's style sheet is
not "!important" and will therefore lose to the second rule in the author's
style sheet [...]' also applies to the third rule in the author's style sheet
(as defined by the cascading order [2]), though it might not result in the
value the UA will use.
Second, I think the given example generally ain't that elegant (in this
simple case) because it uses redundant declarations (related to the 'font-size'
property); why should an author define
p { font: 12pt sans-serif !important }
p { font-size: 24pt }
when he could simply use
p { font: xpt sans-serif !important }
where x is either 12 or 24?
-- As another issue, is it intended to give examples using '!important' as
well as '! important' on the entire page [2]? I perceive this as
'inconsistent' since both expressions are frequently used there (without any noticeable
differentiation), and I claim there will be some people irritated by these
examples. It might be better to use only one form consequently.
Best regards,
Jens.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/cascade.html#important-rules
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/cascade.html#cascading-order
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/cascade.html
--
Jens Meiert
Interface Architect
http://meiert.com/
Received on Monday, 22 December 2003 05:23:44 UTC