I agree, sometimes I wish I could do something like that because sometimes
there is no alternative to writing some of the same rules repeatedly.
From: Andrew Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [WSG] History of CSS Question
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:09:59 +0000
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]
*******************************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
