- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:10:23 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 9/13/05, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Orion Adrian wrote: > > > It's been suggested many times; it's been rejected many times. > > > > To sum up the reasoning: > > > > Browsers can't be trusted to accurately say what features they do and > > don't support. So they may say they support a feature and go ahead > > with the properties in the block, but it won't in reality support it > > and you'll end up with a mess. > > > > That about cover it everybody? > > Maybe, but it's a pretty weak reason for rejecting what appears to > me to be an excellent and constructive suggestion. If a browser > lies about its abilities, then who cares whether the document > renders as intended in that browser ? Surely what matters is > that the document renders as intended /in a browser that doesn't > tell lies/ ? My two yuans-worth. I'm not saying it's not a good suggestion, but I am saying what the reasoning for rejection was. I appologize if I came off as dismissive. -- Orion Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2005 14:10:51 UTC