Re: Targeting CSS3 only (evil?), either with pseudoclass or an extra syntax for properties.

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> That's one reason for having vendor prefixes, to allow them to innovate 
> without impacting on any future standardisation of the idea.

Maybe I missed the "vendor prefix" part of the discussion. I don't know what 
they are.


> There is absolutely no reason to use a conditional comment in order to 
> give IE-only CSS.  There are plenty of CSS filters available, and the * 
> html hack will give you all you need.

I need to target different versions of IE, and even more importantly I'd 
need to target different versions of other browsers since they change more 
often than IE.


> Centricle has a list of all known CSS filters [2] available and some of 
> the browser versions for which they work.

I don't know how to use those. If you're suggesting that Centricle's filter 
list could be used to target a browser once CSS is extended to allow it, it 
still looks like there would be no guarantee that a specific browser would 
be able to be targeted because a new version of any of the other browsers 
might come out that apply rules the same way as the one you want to target. 
Looking through the list to confirm a unique set of Ys and Ns is annoying. I 
might be missing something here though.


> And when all browsers are forced to implement all of these:
> [conditional comments for different browsers]
> ... ignoring the actual UA specified simply because authors abuse them too 
> much, and develop sites for only one browser, we'll be back where we 
> started and you'll be asking for the next method Microsoft implements to 
> be standardised.
> ...
>  Many users that don't use IE are still locked out of many sites, 
> regardless of the fact that the site works just fine in non-IE browsers by 
> changing the UA string, /all thanks to *browser sniffing*/.  So please, 
> trust us when we tell you browser sniffing is simply not acceptable under 
> any circumstances.

I just want pressure put on browser developers to support conditional 
comments. If standardizing them only gets Opera or Firefox to support them, 
that would be great, but the more browsers the better. What website(s) 
blocks non-IE browsers? I've heard the allegations, and I don't doubt it's 
been done, but I'd like to see exactly what you're claiming we'd be missing. 
I certainly wouldn't block anyone based on their browser.

> BTW, which of those, if any, would you actually take the time to use? 
> Would you seriously fill your markup with bloat to handle a few minor 
> rendering issues in each of those browsers, if not more, or simply test 
> with IE and maybe Mozilla and stick "best viewed with X" [3] on your site?

I create webpages that render properly on all of the following: IE 5.01, 
5.5, 6, various non-beta versions of Mozilla, the latest version of Opera. I 
fill my style sheets with some bloat because of the conditional comments 
when I decide it's easier than finding another way to make a webpage render 
properly.

I think I found a way to "fix" a menu that I was having a problem with. Now 
it renders improperly in IE only. I consider that a success, and I am 
currently working on the proper conditional comment. If I decide to revisit 
the issue some time in the future and I'm able to eliminate the conditional 
comment, I'll have no regrets because using it would still have been the 
fastest way to create the webpage, and more clear than using the "* HTML 
hack."

I just read 
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+behind+$12+million+payment+to+Opera/2100-1032_3-5218163.html?tag=nefd.top . 
Opera Software appears to have signed away its rights to take legal action 
over the the rumored actions of Microsoft, and they now just try to show the 
world that Microsoft is feeding broken CSS to Opera through postings I've 
see on Opera's website. If Microsoft is guilty of this, it affects more than 
just the Opera community. It contributes to the reluctance to standardize 
conditional comments because of the fear of creating an accurate way to 
target a browser that can't be thwarted by changing the UA string, and it 
makes web development harder for myself and surely many others. Maybe some 
entity other than Opera Software should sue Microsoft, and if Microsoft 
plays dirty like that, maybe they shouldn't be in the CSS working group. I 
wonder if the Microsoft and Opera folks sit on opposite sides of the room at 
the W3C Technical Plenary.

<conspiracy theory>
Maybe the large fee that Microsoft pays to be a "W3C member organization" 
makes the CSS working group reluctant to kick them off.

Someone from this list asked about the procedure for selecting ideas 
discussed on this list for inclusion in the standards, and I was hoping 
someone would respond, but it might have been a personal email to me or else 
it was deleted from the archive.

I wonder why I'm only being emailed posts from threads that I've posted to, 
and why I couldn't subscribe the first two times I tried.
</conspiracy theory>

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 17:56:38 UTC