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: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@ldreams.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:23:54 +0000
Message-Id: <200504072159.07571.kornel@ldreams.net>
To: www-style@w3.org





On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:19:45 +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen

<kde@carewolf.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think that is not a problem at all.

If vendors don't implement the !required syntax - all requried groups
of code will be hidden from them.

If vendors decide to ignore !required for some properities/values,
it will be possible to write workarounds:

@group
{
   /* Some browser says it has width implemented, but it hasn't */
   #foo {width: 100px !required;}

   /* then fail entire group on feature it acknowledges as
 unimplemented */ html > nothing {min-width: 0 !required;}
}

Ofcourse that is a hack, but it's rather harmless (degrades
 gracefully), and if !required is entirely ignored:

@group
{
   #foo
   {
     impossible: combination !required;
     /* bad browsers get what they deserve */
   }
}


--
regards, Kornel Lesinski
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 21:29:57 GMT

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