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

Re: Conditional CSS sections based on property support

From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:28:13 +0300
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <opsoqgxbol8nstxa@lomarnona>

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:32:00 +0200, Laurens Holst  
<lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:

> As I said, it /could/ be done with just this, letting source order (CSS  
> cascading) take care of it, but it wouldn’t be convenient at all.

I believe it would be convenient. Let the source order handle the  
fallbacks indeed (with the fallback code apparently in the beginning, and  
the more advanced ones are put afterwards. We just have to make sure the  
older browsers don't understand the syntax of the latter block so they  
wouldn't use portions of it that it can understand. Future user-agents  
won't be adversely affected, as they will have adapted the css syntax.  
Making it anymore complicated will be the thing that is not convenient if  
you ask me.

Also, tying big chunks to a required element is the authors choice, and if  
the author wants to require all the features in his CSS to be implemented  
and provides no fallback CSS otherwise, it is his fault. I and you  
wouldn't advise this, and his code would not be understandable by CSS2  
generation anyway. There are many things we do not advise in CSS but they  
can be done indeed. The authors should be encouraged to use only small  
blocks for required attribute, and that is probably going to be the case.  
The author can already feed different css files to agents using 'handheld'  
'screen' 'print' so it would be his/her wrong decision to try to keep  
everything in one CSS file and make it clumsy and big.

But it is good that we all seem to want solving this feature-dependent CSS  
coding problem.

What I wonder is how and when this requested feature would be considered  
by W3? What is the procedure of them accepting or rejecting a proposed  
feature request?

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 00:28:15 UTC

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