- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:09:48 +0100
- To: "Orion Adrian" <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:58:58 +0100, Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com> wrote: >> Not in the way he suggests you do it. > > And in the way I'm suggesting it? Makes sense. (Although I'd would not really like it in any text/css file. More something different.) >> Also, this would require some additional document where XHTML already >> contains this kind of meaning. Not to say I really dislike your >> "proposal" >> though. Quite often there seems to be some need to let CSS specify >> semantic hints/semantics. > > I think the fundamental problem here and why everybody wants to > populate CSS with junk is because they want the matching mechanism. > They want to be able to say, all these like this have these > properties. Yeah, like saying that some element has the same semantics as html:title for example. > It's part of the reason I'd like CSS to be broken apart into it's core > components and standardized seperately. Specifically the matching > algorith + selectors - certain pseudo-classes; the box model and the > properties that can be applied to it; and the grammar. Selectors is separate from CSS. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 20:09:54 UTC