- From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:32:27 -0600
- To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org Tracking WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
On Nov 28, 2007 1:05 AM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > > Karl Dubost wrote: > > Hmm, > > > > It seems that the style attribute is only defined for the font element. > > Yes. And it's one of the reasons why I am extremely unhappy with HTML > 5 at this time. This is plain ridiculous, and so many people expressed > objections against it in the past I don't understand why we're still > discussing the style attribute, attribute that should be allowed > everywhere. > > </Daniel> > You might be interested in this page which links to a few of the relevant discussions. http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/StyleAttribute And it's apparently ISSUE-3 on the tracker http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/3 My personal favorite of all the solutions is to extend the sytle attribute because it's more backward compatible and less traumatic than dropping @style in favor of <style scoped>. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css-style-attr-20020515 I'm sure any good solutions are welcome at the moment. -- Jon Barnett
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 17:32:40 UTC