Jason Crosse wrote:
> I know I'm OT here, but I find that easier than black on white.
> Actually, my default is set as #333 on #ccc, but I sit close to the
> screen and sometimes have to change that depending on ambient light.
I don't think you're all that much OT here, because you bring in fact
On 05/03/2008 02:26, Felix Miata wrote:
> According to Philippe's response it
> looks like FF3 will provide some sorely need defensive power for the inane
> presumption that color: #333 is preferable to #000 on background-color: #FFF.
I know I'm OT here, but I find that easier than black on white.
On 2008/03/04 20:11 (GMT-0500) Rob Emenecker apparently typed:
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> Anyone have any insight on why the specs don't provide such a capability?
> Insight? No. But, to me common sense dictates that if you don't want an item
> styled, then you don't style it to begin with.
Those
> Anyone have any insight on why the specs don't provide such a capability?
Insight? No. But, to me common sense dictates that if you don't want an item
styled, then you don't style it to begin with.
Now in this case someone is asking for a "default" style, however my gut
reaction is that they do
On Mar 5, 2008, at 2:04 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> There is no way to "undo" things in CSS in general. You can override a
> setting for a property by setting it to a specific value, but you
> cannot
> tell browsers to apply their defaults, against any settings that might
> exist elsewhere in
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:10:57 -0600
Jack Timmons wrote:
> Jukka,
>
> I had a spelling error in "borders"; it is incorrect, but is just an
> example.
>
> And simply put, she wanted an easy method for saying "I don't want
> this button to have any of the previous global formatting applied to
> it."
On 2008/03/04 19:04 (GMT+0200) Jukka K. Korpela apparently typed:
> There is no way to "undo" things in CSS in general. You can override a
> setting for a property by setting it to a specific value, but you cannot
> tell browsers to apply their defaults, against any settings that might
> exist
Scott Sauyet wrote:
> We could try to reset every property to its defaults, but I wouldn't
> recommend it.
Neither would I, especially since it would _not_ undo the formatting.
If by "defaults" you mean initial values as specified in CSS specs, then
the idea fails, even in principle, because
a)
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> There is no way to "undo" things in CSS in general. You can override a
> setting for a property by setting it to a specific value, but you cannot
> tell browsers to apply their defaults, against any settings that might
> exist elsewhere in stylesheets.
We could try to
Jukka,
I had a spelling error in "borders"; it is incorrect, but is just an
example.
And simply put, she wanted an easy method for saying "I don't want this
button to have any of the previous global formatting applied to it."
I truly understand that global formatting like that is erroneous, but
Jack Timmons wrote:
> Because of the way this site I work with and the CSS was coded, we
> have a statement like:
>
> input {background: none;borders: none;}
That sounds odd and may cause rather unpredictable results (especilly if
you actually have "border", not "borders", which does not exist i
The C in CSS stands for Cascade. It's inherently designed to, uh, cascade.
Though it makes your life more difficult, I think your best bet may be to
declare all your rules with explicit selectors:
e.g. for every other thing on the page, do...
#path .to .item input { }
...not just a blanket...
Hey all,
While I'm sure this isn't possible, for the sake of harmony in the workplace
I'm posing this problem:
Because of the way this site I work with and the CSS was coded, we have a
statement like:
input {background: none;borders: none;}
A coworker wishes to have a submit button that removes
13 matches
Mail list logo
