Re: Stand-in color before images load

fantasai wrote:
> David Woolley wrote:
>> - marketing departments interpret compliance optimistically;

Hopefully, the marketing department isn't allowed to modify the
code. As long as the machine readable interface reports features
that *developers* believe to be implemented, we're okay.

> I think Ben Ward's !required proposal addresses these problems 
> quite well. 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Dec/0084.html 
> It hooks into the conformance claims that user agents *already* 
> make by parsing and retaining the values they support.

I think that !required isn't enough without @group or
@require-all-properties-supported or whatever the collection of
selectors and properties are called. And if we have collections,
then we don't need !required because the same functionality can be
presented with a collection.

I addition, explicit collection is much easier to understand.
Compare following:

@require-all {
   foo bar {
     color: black;
     background-color: white;
     position: fixed;
     font-family: "Custom Font #1252", sans-serif;
   }
}

vs

foo bar {
   color: black;
   background-color: white;
   position: fixed !required;
   font-family: "Custom Font #1252", sans-serif;
}

I think that the first one makes it really clear that there's
something special in this collection of rules. In the second one,
it's easy to miss the !required part during visual inspection of the
style. Collection also allows the style designer to easily group
properties together.

I think that there's a problem if @group{ ... } doesn't mean
anything unless it contains string "!required" somewhere.

-- 
Mikko

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 09:18:20 UTC