- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:28:24 +0100
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
David Hyatt wrote: > I agree. I think the model of just allowing variables to be defined at > the document-level is simple and intuitive. It allows for centralized > variable definition and reuse. > I think the only way you can make this work and still retain the cascade philosophy is if you require includes and link elements, through which variables propagate outwards to have an explicit qualifier to request this. That way any stylesheet can re=define a variable without caring whether the name is already in used, and have the scope of that variable limited to itself, or the sheets it includes, but still have the option of defining a global set of variables. This is not perfect, because it only really allows one set of variables to propagate sideways at any level, e.g. you can't have a set of corporate variables and a conflicting set of variables for one department, contributing multiple sheets, then have another (matrix management?) department having following style sheets, but which use the corporate variables. From the comments being made about corporate rules and the involvement of Apple, I think this is being introduced for a market that considers the cascade a nuisance, because that market believes in central control of presentation. -- 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 Sunday, 29 June 2008 18:26:59 UTC