- From: Staffan Måhlén <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:59:38 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 20 Apr 2005 at 14:50, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> > a {color: black; background-color: white}
> > it would still override the :focus colors
>
> Right. But then the page clearly wants the <a> to be colored that way.
> How do you know that coloring it with the UA focus colors won't cause
> issues with the page look?
Well you cannot really, but at least the author could then choose to
override using a dynamic pseudo. And UAs just might choose not to use
un-overridable features to avoid conflict. Can you today ensure that
the different UA ways of showing :focus does not cause issues with
page look?
> > Possibly something like adding a dimension where any property that
> > had dynamic pseudo-classes in its selector would be sorted to the end
> > of:
> > 5. user important style sheets "
> > 6. Dynamic user agent
> > 7. Dynamic user normal
> > 8. Dynamic author normal
>
> This has several issues; off the top of my head:
>
> 1) User !important sheets that want to override author sheets have to
> manually style all sorts of dynamic stuff.
> 2) Where do things like:
>
> body:hover a
>
> get sorted? How does that compare to:
>
> body a
> body a:hover
> body:hover a:hover
Well yeah, that's why i'm not quite sure that i am really proposing
this :). But i think that perhaps that situation would actually be
better than the current?
>
> 3) With this setup a :hover rule by the author will still override a
> :hover:active rule in the UA sheet, so you're back at square 1.
But in case of that conflict i think it is more up to the author to
solve it. And an author using :hover is more likely to realise he
should than an author writing say <body link>.
/Staffan
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 20:59:37 UTC