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

Re: Proposal: useragent at-rule

From: Felipe Gasper <fgasper@freeshell.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:39:06 -0600
Message-ID: <4068A58A.1000903@freeshell.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

This is true; "@supports" would only allow for detecting whether a parser 
recognizes something.

I still just think it's a bad idea to start coding for particular UAs. It 
discourages browser makers from supporting standards; in fact, it could open up 
a whole new world of pain with "extensions" to CSS. (And we all know a 
corporation that luuuves to "extend" standards...) I suppose it's debatable 
whether this has already happened with DOM.

I use server-side scripting to identify UAs and then modify the CSS using PHP - 
not the prettiest solution, but it works.

I think ultimately we're debating the merits of one hack vs. another.

-F

Quoth David Hyatt on 3/29/2004 4:22 PM...

> 
> I don't think feature-based querying is a good idea.  The whole 
> motivation behind this proposal is that browsers are flawed and don't 
> necessarily implement the spec properly.  A feature-based solution would 
> result in browsers claiming to implement features even when their 
> support for those features was still flawed.  Ultimately authors really 
> need to be able to identify the exact browser version in order to really 
> know what they're dealing with.
> 
> dave
> 
> On Mar 29, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Dave Shea wrote:
> 
>>
>>> The way to do this is NOT to introduce browser-specific code into 
>>> CSS, but to test for support of individual features:
>>> @supports(td:hover) {
>>>     /* CSS code */
>>> }
>>> Part of the reason for having official standards is to lessen the 
>>> dependence upon coding for a particular browser; having that standard 
>>> explicitly account for browser peculiarities wouldn't make sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> I like this just fine. I completely agree with you. I don't care at 
>> all about the method, it's the principle I'm concerned with.
>>
>> Is there any official momentum behind this?
>>
>> d.
>>
> 
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 17:39:14 GMT

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