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: Ben Ward <benmward@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 00:13:51 +0100
Message-ID: <ef5d0f2f0504041613607df013@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry <wassercrats@hotmail.com>
Cc: ryan@ryancannon.com, www-style@w3.org


Since you advocate conditional comments so avidly. What is the
advantage for you (solely in the conext of CSS, not talking HTML) for
having a "conditional" syntax based on user agent name/version (like
you describe), over having a syntax that enables conditional styles
based entirely on the user agent's support for a certain, specific
subset of styles which you're using in a use case?


On Apr 4, 2005 11:23 PM, Barry <wassercrats@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The only way for web designers to stay sane, is to stick to standards.
> I stick to valid HTML and CSS, but I still like conditional comments.
> > Every layout engine will have bugs. If you're looking for
> > pixel-perfection, HTML is the wrong medium. A strong core of standards
> > gives wiley web designers the tools they need.
> I don't know if you'd call my needs pixel-perfection, but I could only get
> what I want with conditional comments or scripting. If conditional comments
> create pixel-perfection, all the better.
> > And if you want to see a good example of innovative web browser design
> > that doesn't flaunt web standards, check out Omniweb[1]. It's features are
> > impressive and original.
> >
> > [1] http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/
> That webpage has invalid HTML. If all that was "wrong" with it were
> conditional comments, it would validate. It makes me wonder how much the
> authors of Omniweb really care about standards.
> Omniweb might be innovative, but it would be better if it supported
> conditional comments.
> If everyone had my standards for creating webpages (proper use of tables,
> browser compatibility, and valid HTML and CSS), there would be more demand
> for conditional comments. I don't need them to take the place of the
> proposed CSS property sniffers. I just need them for what I'm using them for
> now, for example to fix the blink in IE before the background position
> changes, which isn't a bug and wouldn't be caught by a property sniffer.
> Others have brought up problems with the proposed property sniffers, and
> conditional comments could help there too.
> David Woolley wrote:
> > I think the particular point here was that the HTML should reflect the
> > meaning of the document, not its appearence, so should not change.
> I prefer what ever works best, and conditional comments work best, at least
> for me. I wouldn't mind having conditional comments for CSS only. CSS is the
> only thing I'd need them for if either Firefox or Opera had them.

Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 23:13:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:17 UTC