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: Barry <wassercrats@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 01:11:39 -0400
Message-ID: <BAY102-DAV86D0061D982E431FB5BA7B93C0@phx.gbl>
To: <www-style@w3.org>, "Emrah BASKAYA" <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>

Emrah BASKAYA wrote:
> W3 is trying to put out some standards so it would contradict its own 
> vision to allow specific browser sniffing.

Look at it as a bug management issue. Browsers will always have bugs, and 
conditional comments can help web developers deal with them. If conditional 
comments make some browser developers lazy about standards, we'll still get 
something in return. I don't think they'll use their lazy-time playing 
tennis. The worse that would happen is we would have working *html that was 
more difficult to create. That's better than having to use a different 
design to circumvent a problem, or using a browser detection script.

> We can already send different CSS for screen, handheld, print, projection 
> etc. to different agents and it should be enough. And while this !required 
> style block will serve us great when using advanced CSS features such as 
> border-image, border-radius, background-standincolor(not yet 
> implemented(!)) , it will indeed allow unofficial browser sniffing because 
> ppl would be able to find combination of features not implemented only in 
> a specific browsers and use that to target that browser.

I've been reminded of that publically and privately, but that's where the 
verbosity that I mentioned comes in, and there would be no guarantee that 
there would be a unique combination of unsupported features in any 
particular browser. I don't want to search for a distinguishing set of 
features even if they exist. There seems to be disagreement about that 
method from others on this list too.

Support for conditional comments is probably very easy to add to a browser 
and it could be helpful. I don't understand why more browsers don't support 
them. 
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 05:11:17 GMT

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