- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:23:00 +0200 (EET)
- To: W3C CSS <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Chris Lilley wrote: > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-style-attr > > JKK> I think the only issue with it is: Why hasn't it been officially > JKK> obsoleted? It just confuses the few people who find it. > > Why do that? Because it's an outdated note floating around, and people find it somehow may think it's still relevant, maybe read it as official (yeah, it says it's a note, but people have a great gift of getting things wrong) and even think it's not just recommended but actually implemented. > Having a definition of what goes in a style attribute is > useful, no? There is such a definition: "The syntax of the value of the style attribute is determined by the default style sheet language. For example, for [[CSS2]] inline style, use the declaration block syntax described in section 4.1.8 (without curly brace delimiters)." http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/styles.html#adef-style The only vagueness is whether curly braces _can_ be omitted or _must_ be omitted. It shouldn't take too long to decide on that, especially if you follow the normal liberal/conservative principle. (Oh, and it should probably refer to either 4.1 as a whole or to 4.1.7., not 4.1.8.) Extending the style attribute syntax, in a manner not actually supported by current browsers, looks rather pointless, especially since you are simultaneously working on specifications that would make it deprecated or remove. The note does not extend any specification of course; but its existence, even as a note, paints the wrong picture. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 20 February 2004 10:23:02 UTC