Christian Montoya wrote:
By whacky you mean lovely, correct? Can I just go on the record for
saying that I think the format is wonderful?
For something being used to format (X)HTML, I would have expected XML or
something...
Formatting it as XML sounds like a good idea for machines and would be
nice as an alternative but I think the current format is much more
convenient for writing CSS by hand.
I also like the format, XML isn't some magical file format that fixes
everything. In fact i'd say it's inappropriate for something like css
which has small file-size as one of it's key benefits.
I would have preferred CSS to support nesting of rules (example below)
but what we've got works pretty well.
#header {
blah: blah;
img { blah: blah; };
+ ul { blah: blah; };
> p { blah: blah; };
}
- Andrew Ingram
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
