- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:50:18 +0200
- To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@osiolki.net>
- Cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Quoting Kornel Lesinski <kornel@osiolki.net>:
> Vendors could use that intentionally to help authors avoid known
> rendering bugs (iframe {z-index} could fail in Opera, div
> {background-attachment:fixed;} in IE, etc.)
So vendors would have to documentate all their errors in order to do this
correctly? This proposal is never going to make it. Even in the specification,
it will never be implemented as vendors (1) don't like to documentate bugs and
(2) don't have enough testcases available to track them all.
> @required can't cause much harm - not as much as reliance on
> User-Agent string or CSS hacks. OTOH it will encourage
> implementation and use of new CSS features, especially those which
> aren't backwards-compatible.
Which new features are not backwards compatible? They all should be.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:50:22 UTC