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: Ryan Cannon <ryan@ryancannon.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:18:32 -0400
Message-ID: <425427F8.6080500@ryancannon.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

I believe this lack of versioning/support testing is going to be the 
critical problem in CSS3 gaining widespread adoption. While !required is 
a good idea, it seems a bit complex. Any reason the @module syntax[1] 
was not picked up? It seems fairly elegant. One use-case could be:

body {
    background-color: white;
    background-image: url('main_bg.png');
    background-position: top left;
    background-repeat: repeat
}
@module css3-backgrounds-and-borders {
    body {
        background-image: url('flower.png'), url('ball.png'), 
url('main_bg.png');
        background-position: bottom right, center, top left
        background-repeat: no-repeat, no-repeat, repeat
    }
}

or even:

@import url('css2.css');
@module css3-all { @import url('css3.css') }

This new rule would reqiure browsers to implement CSS3 in full-module 
blocks, but I don't think it's too much to ask future browsers, and it 
will allow those browsers with versions released more frequently than 
every half-decade to implement CSS3 modules as soon as they become 
Recommendations, without having to wait for a complete spec.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2001Jul/0205

Ryan Cannon
Instructional Technology
Web Design
RyanCannon.com <http://ryancannon.com/?refer=email>
(989) 463-7060
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 18:18:35 GMT

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