W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2005

Re: Browsers will never get it right [was Re:Blocked-base parsing?]

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:55:05 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105091412554e52344c@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 9/14/05, Kornel Lesinski <kornel@osiolki.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:24:20 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Look:
> 
> * Browsers should ignore selectors which they don't support, but some have
> fatal bugs and don't.
> * Browsers should ignore properties which they don't support, but some
> have fatal bugs and don't.
> * Browsers should ignore @required blocks which they don't support, but
> because some may have fatal bugs and don't, @required is useless and let's
> not bother at all.
> 
> Don't you think that it's unfair/too idealistic to consider @required
> doomed because of browser bugs?
> 
> It's impossible to create mechanism that will effortlessly ensure perfect
> rendering, in all browsers, current and future, despite their bugs and
> malicious efforts of marketing deparments, but @required is as close as
> you can get.
> 
> CSS1 properties were pretty independent, and per-property fallbacks were
> ok, but in later levels many groups properties work together, so there is
> neccessity for per-group fallbacks.

Or a change in how properties are set. Now one might consider that
some properties be implicitly tied together so that if I don't
implement top, don't bother with right. But these are pretty much
already accounted for.

-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 19:55:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT