Bob Stayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 01:21:43PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote: > > Is it time to move that line farther out, removing things that could > > be done with CSS and just expecting CSS to be used? > > I think this is ok.
I would also agree. I would say CSS1 and much of CSS2 is ok to use. Probably CSS1 has everything you want to do in it? > I'm concerned about the transition. If we are expecting CSS to be > used, would we supply a basic CSS stylesheet that implements these > changes and gives people the framework for customizing? Otherwise > we will probably get complaints about things that formerly worked > being broken. I would suggest the generated CSS should have inline document-level CSS providing the default. This goes in the HTML heading. Authors can override this with an external CSS stylesheet. Benefits: - the external stylesheet can override just those bits of style the document author wants to override, and not have to carry around all the default styling - more standalone: for poeple who are fine with the default style, there's one less file to worry about (the external stylesheet) Downsides: - bigger HTML files? redundant CSS default in each HTML file in the chunked context... > Also, I think we had better stick to CSS1. I've found CSS2 > conformance to be very inconsistent among browsers. > Unfortunately, that's where the table stuff is. I agree. Lets stick to CSS1 for now and move to CSS2 later as needed. Walk before you run. -- ...Adam Di Carlo..<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>