W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Proposal: version at-rule

From: Chris Moschini <cmoschini@myrealbox.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:07:34 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <1080328054.d71f839ccmoschini@myrealbox.com>

Christoph Paper:
> Good cross-browser, cross-version scripts don't test
> for such random things, but for methods they are really
> using, like
>
>  if (document.getElementById)

Yes, I tried to avoid getting into Javascript too much... I must admit that
object-detection is most often the preferred method of determining feature
support, rather than user-agent detection. I avoided this mention in part because
I cannot presently imagine a good, CSS-consistent syntax for "feature support"
that would be comprehensive - and ideas without clear specifics on this list fall
dead.

However, I am most certainly interested in the discussion. To make things concrete,
let's take the typical Box Model IE/everyone else issue.

It may be interesting to have a syntax such as:

#myDiv {
	width: 100px;
	padding: 20px;

	if( calculated-width != 100px )
		width: 80px;
}

A good CSS3 browser sees the if and does not reset the width, a CSS3 browser with
a bad Box Model sees the if and correctly resets the width to fix its own problem,
and finally, a browser with no support for the if statement skips it and just does
sets the second width.

It's very C syntax, but, must we constantly reinvent syntax?

And this example has obvious problems - for example, Mozilla and Opera would read
this CSS and probably reset the width despite having done things correctly. And
some browsers might choke on the if line and never get to the next line, or any
after.

I would be very interested in a better approach ;o)
-Chris "SoopahMan" Moschini
http://hiveminds.info/
http://soopahman.com/
Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 14:15:02 GMT

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