W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2008

Re: @media and browsers conditional statments

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:12:49 +0200
Message-ID: <A898D4D059F046B69A4D96E029A69805@fremycompany>
To: "CSS 3 W3C Group" <www-style@w3.org>
Simplicity and security of @media
Can we suppose that a hypothetical 'OpenWeb' browser using 'freegate' as render engine.

Freegate already support CSS3 but fails when we try to apply 'opacity' on a parent of an IFRAME element (opacity is not applied to the IFRAME) but it works if we specify opacity on the frame itself.

<style .><!-- div.translucent { opacity: 0.5; } --></style>
<div class="translucent">
     <iframe src="about:blank" .  />
</div>

If we want that "OpenWeb" correctly support the opacity, we need an extra rule:

div.translucent iframe { opacity: 0.5; }

But it breaks all others browsers (opacity get applied two times to the iframe).

So, we find a hack for OpenWeb:

@import {;
      div.translucent iframe { opacity: 0.5; }
@import };



When a new vesion of OpenWeb came out:

-          The bug can be fixed but the hack can be not fixed

o   We need to find another hack that works in previous version of OpenWeb but fails on new one. A very complex job.

-          The bug can be not fixed but the hack can be fixed

o   We need to find another hack that works on new version of OpenWeb (and old one, if we want to have only one hack). Another very complex job.

      -     If both hack and bug are fixed, we don't need to change anything.

If we use a standardized @media filter with only (ua-version and max-ua-version):

@media (max-ua-version: freegate 1.*) {
      div.translucent iframe { opacity: 0.5; }
}

When a new version came out:

-          The bug is fixed

o   We don't need to modify the code

-          The bug is not fixed

o   We can change 1.* into 2.*

Browser voluntary incompatibility
If someone wants to make a site non-compatible with a browser, he doesn't need @media at all. A simple script can do the job at this time and having the same effect: 

<script ... ><!-
       if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('xxxx')) == -1) {
              // All browsers except xxx will load this code
             document.write('<link href="style.css" . />');
       } else {
             document.onmousemove=alert;
       }
--></script>

So it will not be @media that will add this problem to the web.



--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:29 AM
To: "CSS 3 W3C Group" <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: @media and browsers conditional statments

> 
> Brad Kemper wrote:
>> Nor would I, but spoofing is just so unlikely. This is not JavaScript in 
>> the 90s. Things have progressed since then. Those authors who have not 
>> progressed are blissfully unaware of more modern css features anyway. I 
> 
> This is largely a human factors problem and, whilst one may get fashion 
> cycles, one shouldn't expect basic human nature to change over these 
> time scales.
> 
> Changes will take place as a result of shifts in the age profile and 
> because more people are going through academic training, but there are 
> still a lot of new inexperienced people, and a lot whose training is 
> limited to glossy cook books and looking at other people's solutions.
> 
> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface révolutionnaire.
http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 09:13:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:11 GMT