- From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 21:39:30 +0300
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Samwul Datong <emarketing@passagegoldtravels.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
24.05.2015, 18:42, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>: > On 05/22/2015 09:37 AM, Samwul Datong wrote: >> šI'm proposing a new simple css rule-weight property which can be added to any set of rules. The simple idea is that a set of >> šrules with a heavier weight should take precedence over lighter weights. > > Random numerical constants like this generally make a mess of things, > and I'm guessing people will just throw random large numbers at their > style sheets in order to "fix" some problem that they didn't take the > time to understand. We already have a similar issue with z-index > (people set it to MAX_INT when they want something to "win" the top > position), and that's even a simpler problem than cascading. When criticizing/rejecting something, it's a good idea to provide an equivalent alternative. For absolute `z-index` we currently have, such alternative could be specifying `z-index` for a selector _relative_ to another selector, but then you'd say that this could lead to undesirable circular dependencies. So absolute `z-index` is not an issue, it is just a practical option to solve real-world tasks. With selector specificity, we currently have two options: specificity of a selector is defined either by the selector itself, or by the `!important` keyword. With `!important`, we ALREADY have a (both specced and implemented) way to override default specificity, but it is unfortunately a very ROUGH way: we either have "0% of !important" (no `!important`) or "100% of !important" (`!important` itself). We can't specify, say, `50% of !important`. As a web developer since 2002, I agree with Samwul: web developers need a MORE FLEXIBLE way to control specificity, and adding a new property for this is a quite natural option that doesn't need any core-syntax-level changes. Any tool can be used wrong way, but this alone is not a reason to disallow using it right way.
Received on Monday, 25 May 2015 18:40:04 UTC