W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2006

Re: proposal: @supports and :supports

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:33:04 +0200
Message-ID: <44746EA0.1020001@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Ben Ward <ben@ben-ward.co.uk>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Ben Ward schreef:
> HeroreV wrote:
> > One common problem of CSS that is likely to become
> > worse: When something new is introduced, there is no
> > easy way to give styling that uses it only to UAs that
> > support it, and use older methods for UAs that do not.
> >
>
> This concept has been done a few times before and rejected. I'd 
> recommended searching the archives for "!required", which was designed 
> to achieved much the same thing.
>
> Off the top of my head, it fell down on a number of issues, one of 
> which centred around the requirement for user agents to implement it 
> correctly and be honest about which CSS features they support. 
> Furthermore, the concept of supporting a particular CSS feature does 
> not indicate whether the feature is supported _accurately_, without 
> bugs. As such, the value of features like this has been shown to 
> evaporate quite quickly and it all comes out looking a bit too Utopian 
> to work in practice.

On the other hand, there is a mechanism in CSS of dropping unrecognised 
declarations.

What if the naming was changed to stop suggesting the ‘support’ of a 
feature (something that marketing may be sensitive to), and instead 
simply allow to query whether a certain declaration was dropped? So 
@declaration-dropped, or something? That should be simple enough to 
query, and would allow for one dropped declaration to cause larger 
amounts of declarations to be dropped.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.




Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2006 14:33:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:45 GMT