- From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 15:20:10 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
The introduction to Appendix G of the CSS 2.1 Candidate Recommendation
states:
> In addition, the document language may impose restrictions, e.g. HTML
> imposes restrictions on the possible values of the "class" attribute.
This is misleading, if not false. When the statement appears, the topic
at hand is the syntax of CSS level 2.1. No document language can impose
restrictions on the syntax of free-standing CSS. (Embedded CSS is
different.) HTML imposes restrictions on HTML documents, not on CSS.
A careful reading of the introduction would note that the example used
is the "class" attribute, part of HTML; not selectors, part of CSS. But
why then does the beginning of the statement imply that HTML imposes
restrictions on CSS? It is instead a matter of what a valid document is
and what CSS can match through selectors.
Take an example. The selector {div.no\20luck} is legal CSS even when
used with HTML. It simply won't match anything (because spaces in an
HTML "class" attribute are, by definition, delimiters and not part of
class names).
--
Etan Wexler.
“And outside it’s all production. It’s all illusion, set scenery.”
—Fugazi, “Epic Problem”, The Argument
Received on Thursday, 5 August 2004 18:21:55 UTC