- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:51:56 -0700
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> On Jun 22, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > > >> 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 :) Those are pretty much my sentiments as well. 'browser-default' would be the most understandable to the most authors (and would help them understand what 'initial' isn't), even though it is even further from being technically accurate.
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 19:52:30 UTC