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: Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde@carewolf.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 18:19:45 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <200504041819.45146.kde@carewolf.com>

On Monday 04 April 2005 12:50, Ben Ward wrote:
> It's nice to see the "!required" syntax come up again.
>
Ahh yes. That is much more elegant way of doing it..

> The way I see it (and I think expressed at the time of the discussion
> of the linked post) was that any UA which incorrectly matches
> !required on a buggy property, that match is also a bug. There's
> nothing which can be done to avoid that happening in lazy
> implementations, sadly. I don't think that disrespect for "!required"
> is a problem any worse than what we have now without "!required",
> though.
Yes. It seems it could work very well with unimplemented properties, but with 
unimplemented values, it seems many browsers parse them and then ignore them 
if not implemented (basically they have been planed implemented but never 
completed). I know for a fact there have been several such cases in 
Konqueror.

>
> I think that this kind of syntax is the best we can get. I also think
> that it's far preferable to some kind of blanket CSS3 property suffix,
> which does not offer any flexibility to handle partial
> implementations.
>
I agree. The question is if it would be in Microsofts interest to implement 
it, and I doubt they would do it if it isn't.

`Allan
Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 16:19:51 GMT

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