W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2001

Re: @version rule

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:31:18 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
cc: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@hotmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.31.0107291820000.1044-100000@HIXIE.netscape.com>
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>
>>     Which level should IE6 claim to support?
>
> Microsoft claims full CSS Level 1 compliance (or support, don't know
> the exact wording).

I said _should_. I know Microsoft claim to have full CSS1 support. I also
know that unless their final release has significant improvements over
their last preview release, they are not even close. Don't take this the
wrong way, I'm very impressed by the improvements that IE 6 Preview has
over IE 5.5 in terms of CSS1 compliance. However, it is nowhere near the
compliance of the best browser(s) on the market, and those browser(s)
rightly do not claim full compliance.


> I sympathize with the idea of an @version statement. I would be great
> if I can specify "process this block only if you support all used
> @rules/property-value pairs/selectors/etc." since implementing just
> _some_ features of CSS may break documents, as shown above.

But then should IE6 claim to support to support 'ex'?

How about 'float'?

[The same questions could be asked of other browsers, I merely pick IE6
because that is the browser mentioned in other parts of this thread.]

-- 
Ian Hickson                                            )\     _. - ._.)   fL
Invited Expert, CSS Working Group                     /. `- '  (  `--'
The views expressed in this message are strictly      `- , ) -  > ) \
personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 21:30:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:10 GMT