well, we could say that css style rules don't apply to subclasses. I
argued for that earlier but everyone hated that idea.
A
On Sep 9, P T Withington wrote:
> On 2006-09-09, at 12:15 EDT, Adam Wolff wrote:
>
> > This is expected behavior. The reason for it is not that edgar is looking
> > at its parent for the value of testdata, it's that edgar is also a view,
> > and right now our specificity stuff doesn't account for the more direct
> > applicability of the subclass selector.
>
> If this is 'expected' it's going to confuse the heck out of people who expect
> our CSS to work like w3c CSS.
>
> As I said in my response, Ben's intuition matches CSS. Here is my equivalent
> CSS:
>
> <style type="text/css">
> <!--
> /* rule 1, specificity 10 */
> [name="thename"] { background-image: url(confused.jpg); }
> /* rule 2, specificity 1 */
> p { background-image: url(w00t.jpg); }
> /* rule 3, specificity 1 */
> div { background-image: url(sad.jpg); }
> -->
> </style>
> <div name="thename">
> <p id="edgar">
> <span name="background-image" style="font-size: 72pt">This is
> a test</span>
> </p>
> </div>
>
> Which will display the background-image 'w00t'.
>
> In CSS a `p` is effectively a `div` with specific defaults for css attributes,
> but rule 3 will never apply to a `p`.
>
> > You can confirm this by switching the order of the rules, and you'll get a
> > different result. I assume that the applicability of rules with the same
> > specificity in CSS is undefined, but ours happen to roughly mimic lexical
> > order for now because we are using array.sort which I think is stable.
>
> One of the cascade rules of CSS is lexical order. Later rules with equal
> specificity take precedence over earlier rules.
>
> > It would be nice to make subclasses more specific than superclasses, but
> > that would make specificity a function of not only the selector, but also
> > the node being selected, and that seems like a pain.
>
> I think the idea of making a CSS tag selector select for `instanceof` is
> appealing, but it is going to confuse the heck out of people who are expecting
> it to be like a CSS tag selector, as Ben's example shows.
>
> My vote would be to fix this now, before it is released in the wild. The
> current behavior could be considered an extension of CSS. As such, it should
> probably be indicated with a different syntax than the tag selector. At the
> very least we need to tweak it so that a more-specific tag/class has more
> specificity!
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Laszlo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
