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

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

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:32:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4328B2F4.5080304@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: orion.adrian@gmail.com
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Orion Adrian schreef:
> 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.
And if one isn’t implemented properly, harming the usefulness of the 
feature, such as width: auto; and height: auto; in IE, it is a bug that 
the browser does not know of and thus will faithfully report as 
‘supported’. Thus @required is not going to help e.g. the absolute 
positioning case at all, which is a major browser feature support issue. 
@required doesn’t solve it at all.

I don’t think that there are many cases that this will solve, really. I 
predict that this will mainly be used to work around browser bugs (just 
like I use ‘* html’ currently), and not to work around cascading 
fallback issues. And that web authors will not let @required will not 
test for the CSS features that they really need, but instead for a set 
of features that will specificly identify a single user agent, in order 
to work around its bugs (and not its incapabilities), exactly because 
the bugs themselves can’t be detected.


btw, in this particular case, width: auto is not supported in a 
position: absolute; context, but it is in a position: static; one. How 
is such a required mechanism going to distinguish between those two...

Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 23:32:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC