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

Re: Proposal of @ua

From: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:44:12 -0800
Message-Id: <B8F50AC7-160C-4029-9FF4-D2C13010F40B@comcast.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
To: freyjkell@gmail.com


On Nov 30, 2007, at 4:29 AM, Nikodem wrote:

>
> Freyjkell wrote:
>> // cut
>>
>> I wonder mostly about IE (other UAs are generally good), because I
>> don't wanna see anymore such shit like:
>>
>> <!--[if IE]><link rel="stylesheet" href="ie-sux.css"/><![endif]-->
>> <![if !IE><link rel="stylesheet" href="non-ie-rox.css"/><![endif]>
>> <!-- non-commented <![if ...]> is also incorrect HTML code -->
>> <!--[if IE]><script src="re-styler.js"></script><![endif]-->
>> * html div#123
>> d\iv#abc
>>
>> My proposal, even if will be issued in IE 99, can clear CSS code.
>
> I think that @media (renderer:Trident) {} is interesting.
>
> That's better than any hack. Wanted or not, hacks will never die  
> while IE is alive.

Yes, thank you for saying it. Or at least the need for them will  
continue to exist, even as they are harder to come by. Also for newer  
properties that are not supported by every UA or are discovered in  
the field to act somewhat differently from each other.  No test suite  
is going to be as powerful a crucible as people in the field actually  
using a new property or value in different combinations, and pushing  
it to its limits.

> But we need to say in spec that these sniffs are supposed to FIX  
> BUGS by overwriting standard-compatible values in order nobody to  
> write following shit (worser than the shit existing before, because  
> it expects only IE or Mozilla visitors):
>
> // invalid:
>
> @media (renderer:Gecko)
> {
> 	body
> 	{
> 		background: url('top_left.jpg') top left, url('bottom_right.jpg')  
> bottom right;
> 	}
> }
> @media (renderer:Trident)
> {
> 	body
> 	{
> 		background:url('alternative.jpg');
> 	}
> }
>
> // valid:
>
> body
> {
> 	background: url('top_left.jpg') top left, url('bottom_right.jpg')  
> bottom right;
> }
> @media (renderer:Trident)
> {
> 	body
> 	{
> 		background:url('alternative.jpg');
> 	}
> }
>
> -- 
> Freyjkell
>

Yes. I would see something like this example as a useful guidance  
note to accompany the specification in the Recommendation.
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 13:44:27 GMT

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