- From: Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 09:43:52 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
> > The CSS specs, however, don’t seem to be clear—please correct me if > > I’m wrong—about what origin such style sheets are considered to have, > > or where these style sheets have to be seen when it comes to order of > > appearance. > > Isn't that up to the browser and/or extension? > > […] If an extension wants to apply CSS to pages, it should, imo, be > free to put it in the right cascade level depending on what that CSS is > doing. > > As a simple example, ad-blocking CSS probably belongs in the user level. > But CSS for implementing a subset of MathML functionality in a browser with > no native MathML support belongs in the UA level. That does not convince me yet that inevitably, this has to be a user agent decision. Neither am I convinced yet that this situation is actually beneficial for extension authors, authors, or even users (who will need to maintain the possibility of having the last say on styling, no matter how few people actually use user style sheets). User agent documentation might—should—clarify on how extension style sheets are handled precisely but any usefulness of such documentation appears to diminish increasingly when you move from extension authors to authors to users. Back to why the spec may help, isn’t this problem a very valid and real CSS use case that would be particularly useful for implementors to have covered? So far I wouldn’t understand why a blind spot in the spec would be in any way beneficial. -- Jens O. Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 16:44:44 UTC