- From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:11:25 -0500
- To: Web style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
Christian Hujer wrote:
> So why should I already use CSS3 features that only work in
[the dominant
> browser], if even HTML4 and CSS2, Recommendations from
*1998*, do not work
> in [the latest version of the dominant browser, circa 2001]?
HTML 4 published as Recommendation prior to 1998 (1997-12-18).
But, hey, what's a difference of a few months at this point?
To answer the question, though, one should use CSS3 features,
like the 'inline-block' value of 'display', because the features
are useful. What's more, CSS is constructed with attention
to graceful degradation. Combining declarations for
CSS3-capable user agents with declarations for downlevel
user agents, one can satisfy everybody.
Nevertheless, it is irritating that certain resource-rich
companies can't muster the development power to implement
four-year-old specifications. (Or five-year-old specifications; has
*anybody* produced a CSS1-conformant user agent?)
> It is always the same with [this monopolistic software giant]:
> New features everywhere, but no bug fixing,
> no or no proper implementation of standards, no security and
no stability.
Get used to it. Robust software engineering often fails to deliver
the payoff for the vendor. We will continue to endure software
of beta quality, alpha quality, or worse.
CSS, in particular, is an area that vendors will be slow to
implement conformantly. Ambiguities and contradictions within
the specifications, lack of a paying market, and difficult
features make CSS unattractive to implementors.
It is not only commercial vendors who will produce
non-conformant implementations, though. There is
significant pressure from dee-zyner folks to implement
certain features, even if those features or those combinations
of features do not correspond to a published specification.
Ian Hickson wrote about Mozilla (<http://bugzilla.mozilla.or
g/show_bug.cgi?id=5693#c40> 2000-08-28):
This is one of those cases where pulling the feature altogether
is the alternative to fixing it, but pulling :hover and :active
is likely to get us all shot.
It's not a rosy picture, folks, so grab your bottle of gin (or
whatever gets you through the night) and prepare yourselves.
--
Etan Wexler
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 00:11:17 UTC