- From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:12:36 +0200 (MEST)
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
> > but assuming (this seems absolutely legitimate) the calculated > > values for the specificity to be decimal, it turns out that the > > specificity mechanism [...] > > They're not, and this has been clear from CSS1: [...] > > I don't know of any specification that says it's not in a large base, > so I don't see any changes (unless I'm misunderstanding your point). Clear mistake, studiousness can cause too much assiduousness ;) -- I remembered the concatenation here to be done with a delimiter (as in the CSS 2.1 specification [1]), and this obviously mislead me. Nonetheless, this "lapsus" seems avoidable if the CSS 2.1 spec was in line with the other recommendations [2-4] -- namely illustrationg the specificity via e.g. "100" instead of "0,1,0,0". Regards, Jens. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#specificity [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1#cascading-order [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html#specificity [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#specificity -- Jens Meiert Interface Architect (IxD) http://meiert.com/
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 07:13:09 UTC