3 ms·

It's a bold claim to say that "anything else is misuse". To prove a claim like that you would have to show how every possible use of !important is "misuse", exc

It's a bold claim to say that "anything else is misuse". To prove a claim like that you would have to show how every possible use of !important is "misuse", except when it is for font-size problems. Now maybe it is possible to show that every conceivable other use is misuse, but until we see such a proof we shouldn't just take for granted just because somebody makes such a claim. A better claim would be "I don't see any good reason to use it". Just because one person doesn't see any good reason to use it doesn't mean there isn't one, or two, or three, or more. It is always very hard to prove a negative ("There isn't any such that ...")

willseth 5y ago
Pemberton is one of the OG designers of the spec. He explained the motivation for the feature when it was designed in committee. It's a much bolder claim to say that because you find it useful in some other way, it's not misuse. If you have a specific case where you think it shouldn't be considered misuse, I'm sure he'd be happy to explain to you how it should be avoided. He's a friendly guy. But you did not design CSS. He did, so you fundamentally misunderstand that the burden is on you to prove there are cases where !important cannot reasonably be avoided, not the other way around.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  When anybody says "Everything else is misuse" that is a very large claim because "everything else" includes very many things. Thus the burden is on them, or you, to give evidence to such a broad claim, if you want us to believe that the validity of such a claim. I don't have a burden to prove anything since I'm making no claims except saying that whoever makes a broad claim should offer some evidence for it. The broader the claim, more evidence is needed, to convince your readers.
  - willseth 5y ago
    The evidence is that he was one of the designers. You seem to be missing the very simple fact that CSS is has not always existed, and it was not suddenly discovered by programmer explorers, whose prerogative it is to define its usage by their usage. It was designed by a standards body. Of designers. The designers designed the usage, and it's the designers' prerogative to define mis-use.

willseth 5y ago

Pemberton is one of the OG designers of the spec. He explained the motivation for the feature when it was designed in committee. It's a much bolder claim to say that because you find it useful in some other way, it's not misuse. If you have a specific case where you think it shouldn't be considered misuse, I'm sure he'd be happy to explain to you how it should be avoided. He's a friendly guy. But you did not design CSS. He did, so you fundamentally misunderstand that the burden is on you to prove there are cases where !important cannot reasonably be avoided, not the other way around.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
When anybody says "Everything else is misuse" that is a very large claim because "everything else" includes very many things. Thus the burden is on them, or you, to give evidence to such a broad claim, if you want us to believe that the validity of such a claim. I don't have a burden to prove anything since I'm making no claims except saying that whoever makes a broad claim should offer some evidence for it. The broader the claim, more evidence is needed, to convince your readers.
- willseth 5y ago
  The evidence is that he was one of the designers. You seem to be missing the very simple fact that CSS is has not always existed, and it was not suddenly discovered by programmer explorers, whose prerogative it is to define its usage by their usage. It was designed by a standards body. Of designers. The designers designed the usage, and it's the designers' prerogative to define mis-use.