- From: Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 17:26:22 +0000 (BST)
- To: Christian Kaufhold <chka@uni-bremen.de>
- cc: howcome@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Christian Kaufhold wrote:
>> The biggest problem with the above suggestion is *what happens if
>> width or height is overriden by another rule?*
> Another equally big problem is what happens if "content" is
> overridden by another rule, e.g. by IMG { content:attr(alt)
> !important; } in the user style sheet.
Oh, absolutely.
> So the other way round there also exists an (implicit) "property
> co-dependency".
Yup. (BTW, *all* the property co-dependencies which occur now are
implicit. That's the problem!!!)
> Then width and height should obviously also not be used (as their
> values would not make sense anymore). And maybe this older
> declaration also needed values for width and height, that should not
> be overwritten by the new ones.
Right.
CSS1 introduced "background" and "color". When applying the
"background" property, one **must** **always** also apply to "color"
property.
CSS2 introduced the table-* keywords on the "display" property. They
are all co-dependent, too.
The display proposal has the same problem, but linking height, width
and content together.
I have nothing against linking properties into co-dependent states,
but I _do_ think CSS3 should introduce some way of making co-dependent
property declarations more robust.
--
Ian Hickson
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 1998 12:26:31 UTC