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

Re: Useragent Rules in CSS

From: Brian V Bonini <b-bonini@cox.net>
Date: 31 Mar 2004 10:13:51 -0500
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <1080746030.17838.56.camel@home.gfx-design.com>

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 18:10, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Brian V Bonini wrote:
> > The whole idea seems to legitimize and condone the broken and
> > non-compliant state most browsers currently find themselves in.
> >
> > I would think the preferable, yet probably less likely resolve, is for
> > the browser manufacturers make a better effort toward recommendation
> > compliancy.
> 
> I'm sorry, you're right.  Obviously designers such as Dave Shea
> should stop using CSS, and should go back to presentational HTML,
> or simply serving up HTML sans styles, until such time as the browser
> manufacturers reach compliancy.
> 
> Thank goodness we have such simple solutions!  I hadn't realized that
> Shea is just some lunatic who doesn't live in the REAL world, where
> we can simply say "oh, it's broken browsers, and that's bad" and
> happily go on our way.
> 
> Go on our way and...um, declare that CSS is completely unusable for
> anything approaching serious design, so we can't do a damn thing with
> it until the browsers get fixed.
> 
> Bravo, Brian!  Great solution.  At least we're not legitimizing
> anything, cuz that would be BAD.


This was necessary? I don't understand the nature of your facetious
reply however if you found something about my original statement
offensive I apologize. Last I checked this was a discussion list and
varying opinions were part of the process. I don't believe I was
disrespectful toward you original post at all. If that's not the case
then by all means please indicate how so.

In the 'REAL world' there are *solutions* for UA specific rules. I was
just questioning if acknowledging the broken state of most browsers in
this manner was ethically the correct approach. Mostly to simply offer
some contrast to the original post. You'll notice I said, "would think
the preferable, yet probably less likely resolve", which pretty clearly
indicates I actually believe your suggestion IS necessary and the
probability of 100% browser compliancy is quite low.

In any case, I'm not sure what has driven you toward such a heinous
response.


-- 
Brian        GnuPG -> KeyID: 0x04A4F0DC | Key Server: pgp.mit.edu
======================================================================
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 04A4F0DC
Key Info: http://gfx-design.com/keys
Linux Registered User #339825 at http://counter.li.org
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 10:16:48 GMT

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