- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:09:23 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> Of course, this has the option of being abused because a browser-maker > could implement the version selector without fully implementing the rest It would also be abused because they would delude themselves into believing that they did fully conform and they would take the most liberal possible interpretation of the conformance requirements. Also remember that CSS provides hints and implementations don't have to accept those hints, and hardware may sometimes prevent their being implemented. Currently no browsers fully conform. Even if you included the media type in this (and therefore required that it only be used within an @media section), I don't think that you would find any browser that could match one of these selectors currently. In general, I believe that this sort of adaptability needs to be done by specific feature tests, never by browser sniffing and probably not by an overall version compliance claim. The feature tests need to go beyond whether the browser supports the feature, they must also take into account whether it will be effective in the current context; users are allowed to override authors and conditionals need to account for that. (E.g. IE 5.5 provides fairly user friendly ways of selectively disabling any comibination of colours, font-faces and font sizes, and a techie interface for providing a general overriding style sheet.) In some cases, display hardware may impose constraints as well. Even with feature tests, one is at the mercy of a vendor's creative interpretation of compliance. My own feeling, is that the right approach is to provide a way of bracketing a set of rules to indicate that they should all be honoured or all rejected. The author then puts a fall back set first, followed by groups in ascending order of preference.
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2003 05:19:05 UTC