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: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:29:54 +0300
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <opsoprz4o18nstxa@lomarnona>

Quoting Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde@carewolf.com>:

> 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; }
> }
>  `Allan

This is a very elegant solution, and much better than a pseudo-class or
extra-syntax. Firstly because, you won't have to read through mails asking  
for
CSS"4" only syntax for the next CSS(!), this principle would help all  
future
CSS developers.

As Lauron Holst rightfully mentions, whether the browser is too optimistic  
about
its own implemention even if buggy, is irrelevant to solving this problem.  
We
only hope that the user adheres to the specifications, there will always be
bugs or differences in implementations. There will be these bugs even if  
we do
not have this new all-or-nothing block. This is about styling our page  
given
the latest developments, while fully using the power of the old generation  
CSS.

This all-or-nothing block -if implemented- would be the back-bone of CSS
development and we would be able to use these principles even in CSS4-5-x  
. The
development of CSS could radically increase, as changes can be made and new
features can be added with more ease. This feature would also get along  
really
well with the new modular nature of CSS3. One example would be that I could
show or hide the 'read text' on my page depending on whether the browser
understands aural commands with ease, in a single line all-or-nothing  
block.

So I think what Alan suggests is a very good idea, even though some may  
argue
what would be best for the syntax.

Emrah BASKAYA
www.hesido.com
Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 15:42:37 GMT

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