- From: Rene Saarsoo <nene@triin.net>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:26:35 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> I think that model should be built by using module names and their
> versions (not UA names):
>
> @has module("paged-media")
> {
> }
>
> @has module("color", 2.0)
> {
>
> }
And when should a browser say "Yes, I support this module"?
For example most browsers already support the colors in CSS 3
color module - so should they say, that they support this module?
Or should they wait until they support every single little thing
in a module - that might never happen. Even if all the features
of the module are supported, the implementation might still
be buggy.
The truth is, that vendors implement standards step-by-step.
I don't see how this kind of "has module" thing could work.
Sure, you could go more specific and ask "has property?",
this would be better, because a single property has higher chance
of being fully implemented than a whole module.
But that's not so much better than the already required behaviour,
where the unknown property is just ignored.
And, maybe I'm wrong, but in my experience most of the browser
problems I have to deal with in real life, are not weather
a property is supported or not - mostly all the properties I
use are supported just fine, but the implementations are buggy.
--
Rene Saarsoo
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 08:27:48 UTC