On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:59:50 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Defining preseantation up to *that* level is no problem IMO.
Great! Then let's.
The current (HTML 4) spec already does so, and in fact this is no more than a translation of HTML's distinction between block and inline level elements to CSS terminology.
That translation already leads to a plethora of different results, CSS-wise. Is the whitespace around a <p> margin or padding? What is the default style of <li> elements? Do they have outside or inside alignment? Padding or margin or both? What is their line-height? Please see my example of <hr> as well, in my reply to Anne. The list goes on and on.
I didn't get the impression from the OP though that the aim was to restrict specifying of presentational defaults to this level.
That's up to us to dicsuss. What level of presentation default we choose to specify is not yet specified. ;-) Having some defaults is either way better than having none, imho.
(The OP said "informal" and "within limits", but didn't define that.)
I didn't define it for a reason.
As I asked before: how does an author provided 'CSS zapper' not do that?
Should the HTML or CSS specification then encourage HTML and CSS authors to use such a "zapper" to get expected visual results across browsers?
How in fact does requiring default presentations remove the need for authors to provide 'CSS zappers'?
You can't require anything with informal (non-normative) language. It's just the normative part of the specification that can be required and enforced. I proposed it as "informal fragments" for a reason, and even if the browser vendors aren't required to implement it, I assume having the styles defined will over time improve interoperability and as Anne points out, make it easier for browser startups to get ahead of existing implementations.
-- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- [EMAIL PROTECTED] «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
