- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:36:18 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Matthew Raymond wrote: > Not sure what you mean. Clearly, I don't support using the /browser/ > as the basis for selector matching. I support using the semantics of the > markup as the basis for matching. (At least in the case of :read-only > and :read-write, that is.) It just so happens that this results in an > outcome that is effectively like Solution 3. Perhaps I wasn't clear > about that. I thought I demonstrated quite clearly on my blog that the markup is not sufficient to infer anything global about the read-only or read-write state because the context of the markup instance also matters, but apparently I was wrong to think that demo was enough. What do I know, I'm only working on my 4th wysiwyg stylesheet-based markup editor after all... </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 20:35:05 UTC