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

Re: [CSS21] Are vendor-specific extensions invalid?

From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:34:36 -0500
Message-ID: <488ED61C.8000904@fastmail.us>
To: Christof Hoeke <csad7@t-online.de>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Christof Hoeke wrote:
>  I did not check but I think there are quite a few properties working
>  in browsers which are not in any spec yet (is opacity in 2.1 yet?).
>  Anyway, there will be always new properties coming which are first
>  implemented and then spec'ed (which is a good thing though as it uses
>  CSS forward compatibility)

The |opacity| property appears in CSS3. I don’t see why it would need to 
be added to CSS2.1.

Christof Hoeke wrote:
>  I don't want to start the discussion how to write x-browser CSS ;)

I’m well aware of the kind of problems that have to be dealt with in 
writing cross‐browser compatible CSS (mainly: Internet 
Explorer‐compatible CSS). I was wondering which properties that you are 
using that can’t simply be hidden in a style sheet accessible only 
through a conditional comment * or validated by changing the W3C’s CSS 
validator’s used profile to that for CSS3.

* Well, this sort of assumes that you place less priority on the 
validity of Internet Explorer‐only style sheets.

Christof Hoeke wrote:
>  For my part I prefer a single CSS where I do not have to change the
>  HTML and add more than one HTTP request for styles to my page.

You have to change the HTML, yes. However, it can be done so that there 
is only one HTTP request per browser via “downlevel‐revealed” CCs; 
unfortunately, this means that both sets of style sheets need to be 
independent of one another (i.e., this method requires more maintenance 
than others). Alternatively, you can have the IE style sheet override 
the relevant parts of the default style sheet; this means that only 
Internet Explorer users need to make multiple HTTP requests.

Christof Hoeke wrote:
>  Still there are properties (like opacity you mentioned above) which
>  are defined in CSS 3 (more or less as it is not a recommendation yet,
>  is it?) but not in 2.1 (and adding more properties or values should
>  probably rise the version number anyway.

CSS3 is a set of modules; it’s not a single specification, so it can’t 
become a recommendation. No CSS3 module has made W3C Recommendation 
status yet (that I know of); CSS3 Color (which defines the |opacity| 
property) is the module closest to becoming a W3C Recommendation. CSS2.1 
isn’t even a W3C Recommendation yet, for that matter. Again, I don’t see 
why you have the concern that |opacity| is not defined in CSS2.1.

Christof Hoeke wrote:
>  I have not checked fully but I think they should be "well-formed" as
>  they generally are just a FUNC token with content.

I was mainly concerned with the colon character in |progid:| with regard 
to the |filter| property. Also, is |property: expression(x : y ? z);| 
“well‐formed” CSS? As far as I can tell, neither are well‐formed.

— Patrick Garies
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 08:35:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:10 GMT