This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Specification: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/rendering.html Filing this bug per Mike's suggestion in https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/showcomment?chain=12192 It is suggested that a non-normative note be added to this section to clarify that, in the absence of explicit prose or !important-s in this section that says otherwise, and in the absence of part of a relevant CSS spec that says otherwise, all CSS property declarations given in this section should be overridable. For example, if this section hypothetically included: p { color: red; } And an author stylesheet includes: p { color: green; } Then one would normally expect the paragraph's text to render in green. If overridability was not desired in a particular case, then either the spec prose should've stated this or the spec's CSS code snippet should've used !important.
Is this not already defined by CSS?
I mean, CSS does define cascading in general (https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascading ). I guess the point is that extra clarity might be warranted since browsers have been known to implement parts of the Rendering section of the HTML spec in a non-overridable fashion (e.g. https://crbug.com/262679 , https://bugzil.la/504622 ).
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20150829#l-175 [12:33am] annevk: cvrebert: regarding https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28954 I'm not sure it's worth clarifying since browsers haven't implemented their current set of rendering rules based on that section [12:34am] annevk: cvrebert: the Rendering section is mostly reflecting what is implemented, sometimes tightening up things that were not defined [12:34am] annevk: cvrebert: so it's kind of reasonable that there's a couple of mismatches
Mike™ can feel free to take up the mantle for this & reopen if he wishes, but I'm okay with foregoing the extra note, since the current spec doesn't enshrine or otherwise aid anyone in arguing for the undesirable behavior in question.
I'm fine with the resolution on this. I did my good citizenship by suggesting to Chris that he raise a bug to discuss it, and he did his good citenzship by taking the time to actually raise it, and Anne did his good citizenship by taking the time to consider it and provide a rationale for a clarification not really being necessary here. So we're all good. :-)