W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Targeting CSS3 only (evil?), either with pseudoclass or an extra syntax for properties.

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:56:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4251013B.3030502@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: www-style@w3.org

Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> I think it would degrade better if we had an all or nothing block, where all 
> the properties would need to be supported for any of them to be applied.
> 
> .sidenote {
>   padding: 5px; 
>   { border-radius: 15px; padding: 15px 5px; }
> }

I agree that something like this would add *very much* value to CSS. 
Although I would personally prefer not such an additional nesting. 
Perhaps something like .sidenote {{ ... }} would work, it is certainly 
shorter than an @-rule.

Whether or not browsers are conservative in their claims for support 
does I think not really matter that much... If they claim support, 
surely they at least have some of it (although perhaps buggy), and 
people will in practice always check in multiple browsers. If it doesn’t 
work, they will probably add some property which is not supported by a 
specific browser (kinda hackish like * html I agree), this is not very 
nice perhaps but I don’t think you can prevent nor rule out the need for 
such practices.

So, in my opinion, when working on a per-property basis, questions about 
when a browser can support a certain property aren’t that important. 
Actually, in this case it seems pretty trivial: as soon as it recognises 
it (and its values), and does something with it, it is supported. Even 
when the implementation is buggy. Anything else won’t do.

So position: fixed in IE would cause the conditional block not to work. 
display: float in IE, even though it is a little buggy sometimes, would 
pass. max-width in IE would I guess only pass when placed on table 
elements, though I could also imagine it would always pass.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 08:57:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:36 GMT