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

Re: @version rule

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 05:06:54 +0200
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@hotmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0hj9mtcnh982r02jdd0q6phv6dsi52vmrc@4ax.com>
* Ian Hickson wrote:
>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_.

They should claim whatever is true; I don't know what will be true,
IE 6 isn't released yet. Regarding some version number based @version
rule, it shouldn't claim anything and it doesn't need to. The proposal
is bad, especially because there are a lot of features optional in CSS
and media dependend.

>> 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'?

If it does, yes.

>How about 'float'?

If it supports floats they way I used it, it should claim that it
supports it.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 23:07:37 GMT

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