Re: CSS shorthand reference

On 7 Dec 2011, at 19:56, Masataka Yakura wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:
>> Thank you so much Masataka! I have given it a bit of an edit to clear up a few small grammar points.
> 
> Thank you Chris! That would help improving my English writing :)

No worries!

> 
>> I guess a question to ask now is - in these situations, do we always want to present the CSS3 way as the way to do it, or do we want to present the CSS 2 way as the way to do it, but then show the CSS3 additions separately? I think the way you've got it laid out here is actually pretty helpful and works nicely.
> 
> For now, I would like to go the latter. Firefox and WebKit haven't had
> support for background-position offsets yet, and they haven't added
> bg-size to the shorthand. (Opera and IE9 do a better job here :)
> Given the browser support I'd rather say that CSS3 features should be
> written separately.

I agree with your point, but think that perhaps we should consider each case separately. In cases like this, where the support isn't consistent yet, I think it needs to be explained separately, But in cases like media queries, where support is pretty good across all modern browsers, I think a single section would be ok, with just a note about lack of support in old browsers like IE6.

(ok, so MQ's are not supported at all in older browsers, rather tha just having new stuff added on top, but you get the idea...)

> 
> I was thinking about including these browser support while writing,
> but such info would possibly be better fit in MDN. I'll update the
> refs page, too.

We will be including a decent, dedicated way of showing browser support references for each feature we cover, in the final publishing platform. we have this in our minds.

Received on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 20:32:49 UTC