- From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 03:28:13 +0300
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:32:00 +0200, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote: > As I said, it /could/ be done with just this, letting source order (CSS > cascading) take care of it, but it wouldn’t be convenient at all. > I believe it would be convenient. Let the source order handle the fallbacks indeed (with the fallback code apparently in the beginning, and the more advanced ones are put afterwards. We just have to make sure the older browsers don't understand the syntax of the latter block so they wouldn't use portions of it that it can understand. Future user-agents won't be adversely affected, as they will have adapted the css syntax. Making it anymore complicated will be the thing that is not convenient if you ask me. Also, tying big chunks to a required element is the authors choice, and if the author wants to require all the features in his CSS to be implemented and provides no fallback CSS otherwise, it is his fault. I and you wouldn't advise this, and his code would not be understandable by CSS2 generation anyway. There are many things we do not advise in CSS but they can be done indeed. The authors should be encouraged to use only small blocks for required attribute, and that is probably going to be the case. The author can already feed different css files to agents using 'handheld' 'screen' 'print' so it would be his/her wrong decision to try to keep everything in one CSS file and make it clumsy and big. But it is good that we all seem to want solving this feature-dependent CSS coding problem. What I wonder is how and when this requested feature would be considered by W3? What is the procedure of them accepting or rejecting a proposed feature request? -- Emrah BASKAYA www.hesido.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 00:28:15 UTC