- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:17:51 +0100
On 9/5/05, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: > None of which are obvious to the average user. but quite obvious to people who use the IEAK to customise IE's for corporate roll outs... > > I never realised FF was so flawed, thanks for correcting me. > > Is it a flaw? Definately, if you disable stylesheets, you should disable stylesheets, just disabling particular media ones is flawed. > > I couldn't see the relevance of browsers which didn't support both, as > > disabled CSS is equivalent for the purposes at discussion. > > If having a Javascript-capable browser effectively means that you > have a CSS-capable browser, but it doesn't mean that... CSS is optional, as is javascript, there's no relationship between the 2 things. Don't fall in the trap of thinking we're specifying things for the standard configurations of current browsers - that's how you make the web more inaccessible for people. >then you don't need additional Javascript in > order to hide the button when printing. This has never been what I've been discussing - the hiding of the button is when script is disabled or printing functionality not there - it's got nothing to do with hiding the button when it is printed, it's purely to do with not having a control on the screen which does nothing. > I can't find that recommendation in CSS1. It's at the end of section 7 http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#css1-conformance >As a matter of fact, I > don't think CSS1 has media types or print-specific properties. no, it's purely talking about disabling css. Jim.
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2005 16:17:51 UTC