FW: Re: Suggestion: Inheritance

There don't seem to occur any further technical objections against my 
back-reference proposal. I'm not acquainted with the process of bringing 
this idea further now. Can someone please enlighten me on what is the next 
step in suggesting back-reference to CSS3?

TIA,
Axel Dahmen

----------------------
>From: "Hans Meiser" <brille1@hotmail.com>
>To: www-style@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Suggestion: Inheritance
>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:12:22 +0000
>
>
>>Some have rightfully argued that these abilities already exist in other 
>>tools, that are in use today.
>
>I'd like to stress the fact that you wrote "in other tools". So there's 
>always a proprietary, third party tool required to be present. In case of 
>web controls or any web libraries being made available no external tool nor 
>preprocessor can be applied. Moreover, using external sources requires a 
>breach in media, which a comprehensive standard should not require.
>
>
>>thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."
>
>Any other way won't be an option to choose from at the moment this proposal 
>gets added to the standard as they all have the drawbacks I described.
>
>
>>Yes, a client-side processor would have many different and interesting 
>>abilities over a server-side processor. It's intriguing, and I for one 
>>would use such a thing.
>
>Me too, definitively and thoroughly...
>
>
>>The problems with your proposal are that you suggest using selectors as 
>>identifiers, and you propose using the computed value of rules.
>
>I admit that I was wrong when using that term at the beginning. In the 
>course of this discussion I now dissociate myself from the term "computed 
>values". In fact, I suggest a plain and simple rule replacement algorithm 
>as given by the example code in my last article. So a "110%" rule basically 
>remains "110%" rule, applied to another selector.
>
>Computed values can not be uniquely identified by selectors, just like you 
>described. Moreover, I also believe referencing rules is more intuitive to 
>the CSS designer.
>
>
>>-- I like that idea.
>
>I'm very happy to read that. So what does it require then to get a common 
>consent and have this proposal added to CSS3?
>
>Axel Dahmen
>
>
>
>
>>From: Ben Curtis <bcurtis@bivia.com>
>>To: www-style@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Suggestion: Inheritance
>>Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:41:48 -0700
>>
>>
>>>It brings unprecedented flexibility and maintainability to CSS, 
>>>particularly in multi-client environments where design templates could 
>>>simply create a whole new design by just changing some basic rules.
>>
>>Some have rightfully argued that these abilities already exist in other 
>>tools, that are in use today. A new spec that covers the same ground runs 
>>the risk of supporting the derisive joke, "The great thing about standards 
>>is that there are so many to choose from."
>>
>>Yes, a client-side processor would have many different and interesting 
>>abilities over a server-side processor. It's intriguing, and I for one 
>>would use such a thing.
>>
>>The problems with your proposal are that you suggest using selectors as 
>>identifiers, and you propose using the computed value of rules.
>>
>>Rules describe how to arrive at the computed values for elements; they 
>>themselves do not have computed values (e.g., a rule for a font size of 
>>1em may have a computed value of 16.5px in one paragraph and a computed 
>>value of 10px in another).
>>
>>Since selectors are not unique, and can be very messy once you start 
>>cascading, you likely want to create some way to identify rule blocks. 
>>Once you assign unique identifiers to rule blocks (to avoid, for example, 
>>cases when a selector with spaces is used where a property value may 
>>contain spaces as delimiters), then you have essentially moved your 
>>proposal into the realm of the variables/constants/etc. that gets 
>>discussed here about once a month. To that discussion, you contribute the 
>>notion of assigning entire rule blocks to a variable name, instead of just 
>>single values -- I like that idea.
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 23:14:09 UTC