Re: Proposal of @ua

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

> Andrey Mikhalev wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 1) As CSS makes custom keywords perfectly legal then you can do:
>>>  @media screen and supports(-moz-radius) { }
>>> to filter out Mozilla only rules.
>> 
>> wrong. just infamous embedded engine supports single mozilla's extension, 
>> nothing more
>
> Beg my pardon but what exactly is wrong there?
> And what is that "infamous embedded engine"?

i mean vendor of some layout engine may support non-standrd properties
of another, isn't it? (e.g. to simplify porting/migrating web apps).
so, in general, you cannot select 'Mozilla only' rules using single
css property check.

>
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) @ua(name, version) is not practically useful as e.g. Mozilla is 
>>> publishing new updates pretty frequently.
>>> I do not think that you would want to make your CSS look like version 
>>> tracker or so.
>> 
>> imo a lot more useful than former in complex production site maintenance 
>> scenario (way to isolate fixes)
>
> What exactly is more useful?
>
> These:
> @ua(mozilla, 1800) {  }
> @ua(firefox, 2009) {  }
> @ua(gecko, XXXX) {  }
>
> ? I doubt that you would want to see this in your CSS.
>
> This:
>
> @media screen and supports(flow,grid)
> {
>  #sidebar { left:1#; top:1#; bottom:3# }
>  ...
> }
> @else
> {
>  #body { display: table; }
>  ...
> }
>
> is more reliable as it will not require future changes when some UA will 
> start or stop to support some feature.

yes, at the moment of page creation.
i was talking about web site workarounds for particular browser 
version bugs during maintenance phase. 
btw, '@else' kills css design.

>
>
> #blk
> {
>    border:1px solid red;
>    @media supports(border-radius)
>    {
>      border-radius:12px;
>      padding:9px;
>    }
>    @else
>    {
>      padding:5px;
>    }
> }
>
> --
> Andrew Fedoniouk.
>
> http://terrainformatica.com
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 18:23:54 UTC