- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:19:50 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
Chris Moschini wrote: > But Daniel, if a more powerful grouping mechanism already exists for > stylesheets - @import - why group them again with the title > attribute? What if there's no @import directive in the style sheet language you're using? > I absolutely agree that this use of "disabled" warps the attribute's > purpose, but why not simply use a different, more appropriate > attribute? What if for example, the rel attribute were alterred from > "alternative stylesheet" to "preferred stylesheet"? What if we added > a new attribute instead of misusing an existing one, such as > render="true"? "disabled" isn't an HTML attribute of the <link> element. It's a DOM attribute of the style sheet object, IIRC. Switching styles through a UA mechanism or disabling stylesheets through the DOM should have no effect on the value of the rel attribute. Also, Boris wants to know how to implement the *existing* HTML syntax, not how to create a better one. > Consider a scenario in which a webpage has several buttons strewn > about (perhaps 5 in a toolbar) that, when clicked, toggle several > Accessibility features: High-contrast colors, larger fonts, etc. > Assume that implementing these features each requires applying a > stylesheet; the DOM scripting required would be overkill. > > How would you handle this scenario in method #2, when only 1 title > may be set as the Active stylesheet? You cannot enable more than one > alternative sheet, so for example, enabling high contrast fonts and > large fonts are mutually exclusive. You would make them all part of the persistent style set and use scripting to enable/disable them. And that way, you could have three different design themes among which the user can choose *while* having larger fonts. :) ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 17:20:06 UTC