- From: J. King <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:49:02 -0400
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:08:55 +0200, Marc <manarth@zioncore.com> wrote: > Perhaps the type attribue should be redefined: > <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" type="text/css" > media="screen" /> > <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" type="text/css3" > media="screen" /> > <link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" type="text/css4" > media="screen" /> > > There is precedent: the HTML dtd (doctype declaration) specifies the > version of HTML is being sent, so why not do the same for CSS? Yes, there is precedence for this sort of thing, but what you're proposing is registering a new MIME type each time the Working Group issues a new version of CSS. This is certainly not the best way to do it. One of the original design goals of CSS is that agents with less capabilities than you intend will still display the document acceptably. Though this generally hasn't worked terribly well in practice, the principle is sound and does apply to a great many CSS3 properties that are being proposed. > Adding a deliberate 'Exclude' statement into CSS would allow developers > to deliberately introduce different style elements depending on what > browser was used. This avoids 'dirty hacks' like the example above; > allowing developers to cater for different browsers' implementations of > CSS in a more meaningful and deliberate fashion. Client- and server-side scripting will already do this (more or less poorly), and it's doubtful that any similarly-intentioned implementation in CSS would work any better. Use what's avalaible if you must, but browser sniffing, as it's called should be discouraged, not enshrined in the specification. -- J. King mailto:mtknight@dark-phantasy.com http://dark-phantasy.com/ http://snap.dark-phantasy.com
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2003 13:47:51 UTC