W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Proposal of @ua

From: Pascal Germroth <pascal@germroth.name>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:43:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4746CAFD.6050903@germroth.name>
To: jesse@dutchmoney.com
CC: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>, Rijk van Geijtenbeek <rijk@opera.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>

jesse von doom wrote:

> I know that a browser could lie in its response

But why should it? I don't think that the marketing team of any
browser-creator would dig that deep into the technology layer...
And nowadays it seems as if everyone would be concerned about the
standards, so maybe they would not lie about a broken implementation (if
they know it to be broken...)

Also, don't other technologies like the DOM support such a mechanism, too?
Or maybe there should be a "fallback" like in XSL-T, which allows the
designer to try certain approaches until one succeeds (maybe could be
marked with !alt(0), !alt(1) etc. If one !alt(x) fails, every other
!alt(x) is ignored)
Sample:
div {
  color: red !alt(0);
  font-weight: bold !alt(0);
  color: blue !alt(1);
  font-size: 200% !alt(1);
}
Would make the font bold if it can be red and 200% in size if it can be
blue, resulting in 200% bold blue text on a red&blue-device, 100% bold
red on a red-device, 200% blue on a blue-device.


-- 
Pascal
Received on Friday, 23 November 2007 12:44:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:56 GMT