Magdalena Turska
Magdalena Turska
Sorry, I mean done in a neater way than our current outputRendition stuff. I have no quarrel wih @rendition itself.
For the sake of discussion: We could actually point to rendition entry in the header to store the css that reflects actual editorial decision (following the editor/designer separation of concerns),...
Are we in agreement then and shall we proceed and add `@cssClass`?
First argument that comes to mind against `` is there may co-exist a number of those in a model. There's no clear hierarchy between them and no other wrapper than...
Depends how you think about it: should everything that can be done in CSS be done in CSS? No point in having outputRendition at all then. Yet we do, and...
> If you decided to document the bracketting in the ODD, you don't want to refer to the CSS class This doesn't necessarily follow. I agree that line between what...
Your wording sums it up nicely indeed, thanks. One suggestion though > Firstly, the @CSSclass attribute may be used to specify the name of a CSS style in some associated...
> specific context for a specific output, as specified on a `` if you could add these last few words then? Mentioning model explicitly sounds clearer, I think. I have...
> Firstly, the @CSSclass attribute may be used to specify the name of a CSS style in some associated CSS stylesheet which is to be applied to each occurrence of...
I think we quite consciously have made the decision of excluding 'syntactic sugar' options for types and subtypes of names, all for the sake of leaving the editor with precisely...