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: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:00:30 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ben Ward <benmward@gmail.com>
Cc: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504072239520.20461@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Ben Ward wrote:
>
> [positioned opacity is all-opaque in legacy UAs]
> 
> So, with regard to the above scenario and any similar others that may 
> arise in future. Is it in the WGs vision that CSS should have some means 
> of handling such conflicts? Or are scenarios such as this accepted as 
> 'inevitable without resolution' as the CSS vocabulary grows larger?

I can't speak for the group, but the real problem is that all the 
solutions that have been proposed have fundamental problems, which have 
been discussed to death over the last eight years. It's a discussion that 
working group members have learnt to avoid because there simply haven't 
been any new ideas for years, and repeatedly pointing out the problems 
(some of which only really come to light when you try to specify it in 
enough detail to be worthy of putting it in a spec) is no fun.

In the absence of a working solution, the scenarios you mention are indeed 
effectively "inevitable". In general we try to avoid them.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 23:00:38 GMT

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