Re: Proposal 'default' value

> The proposal is that "default" should be introduced as a way of getting 
> the same effect as if no selector matched the element.
yes, I mean the same thing.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: "WWW Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal 'default' value


>
> Eugen.Konkov@aldec.com wrote:
>> under 'default' I mean initial value as it defined in DTD
>
> No colour values should be specified in the DTD.
>
> What you want is "initial", which, for colour, "depends on the user 
> agent".  It might not be black; it might be the foreground colour 
> currently configured for the GUI (e.g. Windows) currently being used.
>
>> so computed value of 'color' in my example will be that as there no any 
>> css for 'color' of DIV  was defined
>>
>
>>
>>> Would it be useful to have a 'default' value, defined to be equivalent 
>>> to 'inherit' for properties that are inherited by default and equivalent 
>>> to 'initial' for properties that are not inherited by default?
>>
>> %) too compex to understand what this sentence means
>
> Some properties are inherited if no rule matches.  For those the, 
> proposed, "default", would result in inherit behaviour.  Inherit means 
> that the value is taken from the surrounding element.  color inherits, by 
> default, so "default" would produce whatever was the colour of the element 
> that contained DIV.
>
> Other elements are  not inherited by default.  An example is "top". Using 
> "default" on "top" would result in its initial value, which is "auto". 
> Using initial would do the same.
>
> The proposal is that "default" should be introduced as a way of getting 
> the same effect as if no selector matched the element.  It would be 
> redundant, because whether to use "inherit" or "initial" is always well 
> defined.
>
> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>

Received on Saturday, 27 October 2007 14:54:27 UTC