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: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:17:50 +0200
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4AA44A15-4A06-489A-9BC1-258BC9C34B85@rivoal.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> On 22 Jun 2015, at 21:23, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 4:26 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> 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. If it's used in a author- or user-level style sheet,
>> it does not return the value to the UA default value.
> I am 100% okay with ua-default being "incorrect" in author-level style
> sheets.  In practice, it *is* correct 99+% of the time, and when it's
> not, *the distinction doesn't matter*.  As far as the author is
> concerned, the user and UA style sheets are part of the same thing -
> "the styles underneath me".
> We're never going to provide a value to authors that *does*
> distinguish between user and UA (it would be user-hostile), so it
> doesn't actually matter that this is technically pointing to the wrong
> place in the origin hierarchy.

Right, so I don't object to ua-default. I just don't prefer it. Also, walk to a random css author, and ask what a "UA" is. I don't think it's the best name we can pick. But if that's the one everybody wants, I'll live :)

 - Florian
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 20:18:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:55 UTC