- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:02:30 +0100
- To: orion.adrian@gmail.com
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Orion Adrian wrote: > It's been suggested many times; it's been rejected many times. > > To sum up the reasoning: > > Browsers can't be trusted to accurately say what features they do and > don't support. So they may say they support a feature and go ahead > with the properties in the block, but it won't in reality support it > and you'll end up with a mess. > > That about cover it everybody? Maybe, but it's a pretty weak reason for rejecting what appears to me to be an excellent and constructive suggestion. If a browser lies about its abilities, then who cares whether the document renders as intended in that browser ? Surely what matters is that the document renders as intended /in a browser that doesn't tell lies/ ? My two yuans-worth. Philip Taylor
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 14:07:54 UTC