W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2015

Re: [CSSWG] [css-cascade] CSS Cascading and Inheritance: Updated L3 CR, FPWD L4

From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:13:37 +0300
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <624561434816817@web26h.yandex.ru>
20.06.2015, 14:29, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>:
> The problem with ua-default or any such thing is that it's only
> correct terminology for the effect when it's used in a user-level
> style sheet.

Then maybe `cascade-default`?

> The problem with 'default-value' is that it's inconsistent with
> the other global keywords, which are not called 'unset-value',
> 'initial-value', etc.

Another idea (besides uncommented `!default`, `original`, and `cancel`) is using `default` as a _function_:

    .example {display: default(); }

By the way, it would maybe make sense to revise the existing `default` keyword as a value of the `cursor` property. Would it be _really_ critical if `cursor: default` behavior has been changed? How often is `cursor: default` used, and how often it seriously (and positively) affects user experience and changing its current meaning would negatively affect user experience?

For example, if a web developer uses `cursor: default` for a link (`A` element), the link will just be effectively returned to `cursor: pointer` if we change `default`-keyword meaning. `cursor: pointer` is natural and totally fine for links, moreover using links as something else is a bad practice anyway (e.g. if a link is temporarily unclickable, then its `href` attribute should be removed instead of its cursor be changed to mimic non-link styling). Would it be really unacceptable if elements had their original cursors instead of OS-level default one? I guess that's a minor issue.
Received on Saturday, 20 June 2015 16:14:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:54 UTC