Closed
Bug 18777
Opened 25 years ago
Closed 25 years ago
RFE: support a "required" keyword for LINKed stylesheets
Categories
(SeaMonkey :: General, enhancement, P3)
SeaMonkey
General
Tracking
(Not tracked)
VERIFIED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: sidr, Assigned: leger)
Details
Split off from Bug 17309 "Wait for primary style sheets before constructing
frames" to avert that bug going off on a tangent:
Adding a behaviour for a "required" keyword (and the keyword itself if it is
not supported) for LINKed stylesheets would provide a true alternative to
rfc2557 MHTML in the browser (the RFE in bug 18764), and, if "important" were
also supported as suggested, provide the author with two levels of escalation,
which ought to be enough.
If "required" was dependably interpreted and supported in all future versions
as just that, support for MHTML in the browser would probably be unnecessary
for this purpose. In fact, I couldn't advocate the latter without some
clear and unmistakable way for authors to signal that a LINKed stylesheet
was required, lest MHTML get overused or abused.
The point would be that layout would not begin until a "required" stylesheet
was recieved and parsed. Those serving very complex content (HTML+CSS from
an XML+CSS backend, for example) may want to be able to request such a
guarantee.
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Comment 1•25 years ago
|
||
s/required/important/ and we already do _exactly_ this:
<link rel="important stylesheet" ...>
...will block loading of the document until that stylesheet is loaded.
Marking INVALID.
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•25 years ago
|
||
Well, OK.
I still think that overloading the meaning of "important" to also imply
"required" could be confusing to the people who buy the dummies books -
or never presented in those because it is confusing. And having both an
"important" and a "required" keyword implemented to mean only their
natural meaning would provide more flexibility for the future. As stylesheets
become absolutely necessary with XML, preserving a way for the page author
to indicate that a UA should make best efforts (more than one attempt) to load
a stylesheet first ("important") as well one to as block display without it
("required") could be useful.
So the suggestion is really to back the overloading of "required" out of
"important" and add "required" so that moderation is possible. Personally
I wouldn't want to see many of the books recommending (or many of the
graphical editors defaulting to) adding the "important" keyword (meaning
required) to *ALL* stylesheets for lack of a moderate alternative - and
given the way that some stupid memes have gone pandemic earlier in the history
of HTML usage, that could happen.
This suggestion is very late, however, and the proper forum is elsewhere.
Updated•25 years ago
|
QA Contact: leger → chrisd
Comment 3•25 years ago
|
||
QA Assigning to Chris Dreckman to verify.
Updated•25 years ago
|
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Comment 4•25 years ago
|
||
Verifying invalid
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•