• From: Chris Lilley <chris@w...>
• To: abrahams@a...
• Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 14:18:09 +0200

abrahams@a... wrote:
> 
> The core syntax of CSS2 (Sec. 4.1.1 of the spec) specifies that the
> selector in a ruleset is optional.  The syntax in Appendix D says the
> same thing, but more elaborately.   Can anyone explain the rationale
> behind making the selector optional, or what the effect is of a ruleset
> without a selector?

These two rules are identical in effect, one has no selector:

* { font-family: Garamond }
{ font-family: Garamond }

Think of the selector as a filter, that screens out non-matching
elements. If there is no selector, all elements are matched.

--
Chris

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Omitted selector in CSS2 rulesets
    • From: abrahams@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: Lotsa laughs
• Next by Date: Re: Overloaded URIs (was Re: XLink: behavior must go!)
• Previous by thread: Omitted selector in CSS2 rulesets
• Next by thread: Weighing in on XSL / Standards
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread