- From: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 17:53:07 -0500
- To: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Liam Quinn wrote: > If you don't add funky characters you don't have backwards compatibility > with CSS1-compliant browsers. I think you can. I think I gave something close to a real way of doing it which would actually be bc with css1 browsers. >.... > I don't think that CSS2 should be held back because of backwards > compatibility concerns in buggy implementations. If that were the case, > we'd have to deprecate em and ex units (IE3 bugs), backslash escaping in > selectors (Netscape 4 bug), percentage font sizes (IE3), and a slew of > other features. The current CSS implementations are at such an infantile > stage that I don't think that those writing the CSS2 draft should concern > themselves with browser bugs. <ANALOGY CLASS=dumb>You don't reform the > education system just because 2-year-olds can't pass high > school.</ANALOGY> Nice rhetoric. Most of these bits (not all) don't matter much except that you'll get some bad formatting. That's different from really wrong things happening, which is my suspicion for the extension syntax for selecting on child/sibling information. All good standards work *must*, not may, pay attention to what the real implementations are doing. Turning a blind eye is not an acceptable response. Why not critique the idea of using the pseudo-class/element syntax instead of attacking the browser makers? And *if* there's such a way to do this, why not do it that way? I notice BTW that nobody has even bothered commenting on the clash between this work and DSSSL/XSL. Doug -- Doug Rand drand@sgi.com Silicon Graphics/SSO http://reality.sgi.com/drand Disclaimer: These are my views, SGI's views are in 3D
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 1997 17:57:44 UTC