- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:46:01 +0000
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
David Woolley wrote: >> >>Looking at a colleague's CSS recently, I couldn't help but >>think that "good" CSS might be a lot easier to compose if >>CSS were to support the concept of clustering. By this > > > This is just a variation on the macro facility proposal that > comes up frequently. I agree, although syntactically it fits well with existing CSS > > The problems are that it is something that can easily be done > by an authoring tool or server side pre-processor Agreed : I am considering the case where an author must (or chooses to) work without such a tool. Once the existence of a universal authoring tool is postulated, one can only too easly dismiss any suggestion which is intended solely to make the work of an author simpler and more intuitive. > and that these > proposals tend to assume that there is no cascade and only a single > author and fail to consider how the new feature will cascade. I didn't neglect the first (the existence of the cascade), nor did I consider only the case of a single author : however, I /did/ assume (perhaps reasonably) that only one author would work on a single style sheet at any one time. I think the cascade issue is something of a red herring here : the proposed "named cluster" of properties would be local to the CSS file within which it is used, or (if it can be stored separately and imported), then local to the file(s) into which it is imported. I'd be interested to know why you feel that the cascade is important here. Philip Taylor
Received on Friday, 11 March 2005 12:54:29 UTC