- From: Joop Nijenhuis <joop.nijenhuis@hccnet.nl>
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:23:26 +0200
- To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Going to the link below I get this as an example; iframe,object[type^="text/"], object[type$="+xml"],object[type="application/xml"] { overflow:auto; resize:both; } I don't want to be rude, but this type of declaration looks more like programming than the one found with frames which is understood much better by none programmers. The www is for everyone, not only for the happy few who know how the handle programming code. CSS has gone far beyond simple and simple users have to rely on programs which will *not* do what the users wants, but he/she has no choice. Next you are forced to some certain OS-systems because such programs are not for less used OS-systems. This is exactly the policy of a certain firm who wants no healthy competition. Also the CSS 2.1 is not yet implemented in browsers and far away concerning editors. Its fine to me if one have a choice, CSS or just frames, but better implemented than today. Frames have to get back in HTML 5 specification, its not up to you what to decide, but its the user of the web. Or are you afraid that it might get crowded if you keep html simple? Regards, Joop > Many thanks for the recommendation - I found more detail here: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#resizing > > But was concerned by this earler comment in the same document: > > > Features that are at risk (see the below list) will be dropped > ... > > > Features at risk > > > > The Working Group has identified the following features as at risk of > being removed from CSS3 Basic User Interface when exiting CR. > ... > > * 'cursor' property values: ew-resize | ns-resize | nesw-resize | > nwse-resize > > * 'resize' property > > Do any agents currently support this? I cannot seem to find an > implementation.
Received on Saturday, 12 September 2009 19:40:06 UTC