W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [css3] [css21] browser specific CSS

From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:24:48 -0700
Message-ID: <345aaf7e7c8938e3420c1e4c6a38a818.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "Glenn Linderman" <v+html@g.nevcal.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org

Le Ven 1 avril 2011 10:51, Glenn Linderman a écrit :
> On 4/1/2011 9:43 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Glenn Linderman<v+html@g.nevcal.com>
>> wrote:

> Sorry, you didn't explain it, and Boris didn't explain... you only
> stated that there were such reasons.
> If browser sniffing and resultant workarounds are implemented poorly,
> that either means that
> 1) it is hard to implement them well, given the available facilities for
> doing sniffing... this could certainly be improved, with boilerplate
> Javascript or CSS features to assist.
> 2) some web site authors are bad coders.  This is certainly true...
> there are many web sites that suffer from bad coder syndrome.  Lots of
> sites are authored by people by just whacking at the HTML until it works
> for them in one browser, one screen size, and then they claim it is
> done.  Others may do bad browser detection, and support two browsers,
> and make things worse for the third, and not care.
> 3) If a single browser is used for web site development, and it has
> bugs, the site may depend on those bugs, and no other browser may even
> want to display that site properly, because to do so would require
> implementing bugs instead of standards.
> Problem 1 could be cured, eventually, with appropriate features in the
> specifications.  Problems 2 and 3 will never go away, but if browser
> detection were easier/standardized, and available in CSS without
> resorting to Javascript (and in Javascript in an easier manner, and to
> CGI scripts in an easier manner), then it would be lots easier to test
> with multiple browsers, and good web site coders could benefit.
> Don't cater to the bad coders, but rather make it easy for good coders
> to do useful things in easy and effective ways, and provide
> documentation for doing it right.  If it is easy enough, even the bad
> coders might learn how.  But right now there is a huge barrier to using
> CSS: it doesn't work cross-browser, without heavy investment in learning
> arcane browser hacks.


Your last sentence is stunning. First and again, you do not specify what
you mean with "CSS". Is it CSS 2.1? Is it CSS 3 modules and, if so, which
modules? There are some CSS 3 modules which are Candidate Recommendation
but there are others which are not remotedly close to CR status.

You do not provide a single example of what you call a "browser bug". No
testcase. No example. No demonstration. No url. Nothing concrete. Just a
sweeping statement on browsers (no version specified) regarding
unspecified chunks of an unidentified CSS level. We have no idea, no clue.

> Until you show me the mile high picture, what I'm hearing is that in the
> future, it will be more difficult to do browser detection, and therefore
> the barrier to using advanced CSS will be even higher.  The perception
> will be that the spec has lots of nice features, but because there is no
> way to work around browser bugs (which will exist), the payback for
> learning a new feature will be to rip out uses of it, if not all
> browsers support it correctly.

Not once, so far, have I read you say that people can and should report
bugs to browser manufacturers when they believe they see one. Isn't that
what should be happening in the first place when people think/believe they
see a bug?

In your initial post, you wrote "But just as Microsoft is attempting to
make IE6 die" . Even such claim is questionable. I would say that
Microsoft has done very little to make IE6 die.

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011

Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite

Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
Received on Saturday, 2 April 2011 01:25:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC