- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:24:20 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Emrah BASKAYA wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:34:39 +0300, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > ...and then we're back to where we are now. So what's the point? I > > disagree that the benefits introduced outweigh the cost (in author > > confusion and frustration, in implementation investment, in testing, > > in specifying what "a good level of conformance" means, etc). > > We don't have to make it complicated and put conformance levels. In that case we're back to the original proposal, which doesn't work at all, as discussed. > But I am sure, with the absence of such a @required feature, the authors > will find great many hacks to use new CSS3 feature without making it > look silly on CSS2 browsers (classic example would be using less padding > when UA cannot display rounded corners), such as using CSS3 selectors > *just* for the sole purpose of eliminating CSS2 browsers. Yes, that's quite possible. However, the proposed feature wouldn't actually help with this case, since you'd end up with browser X claiming support for border-radius despite a fatal (but unnoticed when the browser shipped) bug. Or some similar thing. > Not that I don't understand your concerns, but it is a bit sad with how > we can't get out of this status quo. Well, we're looking for a solution. It's just that so far all the proposed solutions would either not actually help (such as here) or would make matters worse (such as "legitimised" UA sniffing). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:24:50 UTC