- From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:55:23 +0200
- To: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Matthew Raymond schrieb: > Chris Wilson wrote: >> Dave Raggett [mailto:dsr@w3.org] wrote: >>> IE conditional comments for HTML are better than selector hacks, but >>> have to be placed in the HTML and there is currently no direct >>> equivalent within CSS. >> We did propose this in the CSS WG a couple of years ago, and got shot down. Note that spec'ing syntax within comments doesn't really make sense. Conditional comments could work for CSS as they do for HTML. > There's a reason for that. Prototyping using the vendor-specific > extension naming syntax works just fine. For instance, Mozilla has a > prototype implementation of "border-radius" under the name > "-moz-border-radius". When "border-radius" finally becomes part of a > recommendation, Mozilla can support it even if it doesn't work the same > as its earlier implementation because the names are different. In fact, > they can use the declaration of "border-radius" as a flag to turn off > the "-moz-border-radius" style. > > Also, CSS isn't version based to begin with. It's level based. But > even if you consider the levels nothing more than another name for > versions, how would versioning fix problems like the bugs in Internet > Explorer's CSS Level 1 implementation? > > But if you really want switches in CSS for IE to use, why not the > following? > > | * { -msie-version: 7.0; } Why the star selector? An at-keyword like @-msie-navigator seems appropriate. --Dao
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2007 15:55:27 UTC