- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 03:20:51 +0900
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:43 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > I was just thinking about some of dbaron's comments on 'default' from > the F2F, specifically about whether the two user levels (normal and > !important) were grouped together for the purpose of cascade rollback. > > Currently in the spec they're not, but thinking about it I realize > that perhaps that's not reasonable. > > Consider in the user style sheet: > :link { color: default; } /* resets to UA default color */ > :link { color: default !important; } /* says to use the author's choice */ > > The declaration substantially changes meaning when we add !important > here, and that probably doesn't make much sense. Thoughts? It seems difficult to tell what the intent is. Unlike author-important, which can just be treated like a fourth level of specificity, higher than #id, user-important is substantially different from user. User-level just sets defaults, which are used when the author doesn't set anything else; user-important sets *mandates*, which can't be overridden by the author at all. It seems reasonable that a user may want to reset their "mandates" without resetting their "defaults". On the other hand, it also seems reasonable that a user might want to use the "default" semantics to indicate that they really, really want the user-agent defaults for something, such that it should wipe out *everything* between user and user-important, including the author levels. This preserves dbaron's desired invariant that the dropped origins are contiguous. So, dunno which might be more reasonable. ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 18:21:38 UTC