> > CSS is not a programming language, so it doesn't have variables in it.
> > You define set classes and ids that appear in your source somewhere.
>
> Just to be clear, it's a totally reasonable thing to expect
> from CSS. It would be nice to be able to define
>
> h[0-9] {
> font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;
> }
>
> instead of the ungainly
>
> h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, h7, h8, h9 {
> font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;
> }
Actually there is only h1 to h6 and when was the last time you used
all of them?
CSS is there to style the content and its specs do allow for a lot of
flexible content. If you start seeing web sites as bits of collated
content and not a bunch of code CSS gets a lot less frustrating.
One really cool thing about CSS is its flat learning curve, if you
show a visual designer Regular Expressions they will expect it is a
really tough password or "the computer got sick".
If CSS were to become more programmatic (and the cryptic CSS3
selectors and the modularity of it does point that way) it will become
a lot less maintainable and might even lead to vulnerabilities -
anything I can fill a memory with is an attack point.
The example here is perfect. A generated class on each list item
applying the same styling can only be based on not understanding the
cascade in cascading style sheets. CSS is
not a FONT tag on steroids.
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
