- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:57:58 +0800
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/04/11 12:35), Simon Sapin wrote: > Le 11/04/2012 00:34, Andrew Fedoniouk a écrit : >>> But this isn't about inheritance at all: this is about handling of >>> > multiple rules applying to the same element (cascading) rather than >>> > propagation of computed values from ancestor to descendant >>> > (inheritance). >> That is debatable of course. >> "In classical inheritance ... classes can inherit attributes and >> behavior..." >> src:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_(computer_science) >> >> Process of applying multiple matching rules can be seen as runtime or >> dynamic or prototype inheritance - final/used style is a set of >> properties and values >> inherited from all matched rules in order of selector specificity. >> >> But the term does not matter indeed as soon as concept is clear. > > > Yes, you can argue that what you propose looks like the general concept > of inheritance. I think that David’s point was that in CSS, we already > have something named inheritance and an 'inherit' keyword, both with > very precise meaning and behavior. You proposal is not about *this* > inheritance, and the term is already taken. It would be confusing if > "counter-increment: inherit" and "counter-increment: !inherit" were both > valid but meant something completely different. > > I think that this proposal addresses a real need, but it needs another > term. What about.... pseudo-inheritance?wwww (Just joking)
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 07:58:30 UTC