- From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:58:36 +0300
- To: orion.adrian@gmail.com, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:20:28 +0300, Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com> wrote: > Highly styled pages will always look bad in many places. Rules like > this one are designed to allow for even more highly styled pages. I'm > against any rule to merely puts a new glossy coat of paint over an > old, ulgy problem. People who really want to show off their sites for Handheld navigation can and will use media queries. Not every site has to be browsed with a PDA (but Opera's small screen technology really shines). It can't get any worse than this, at least people will have hopefully dumped tables for layouts (in I guess about 4-5 years, when CSS3 is going to be picked up, I presume), than the pda's will have better time dealing with those pages. On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:34:39 +0300, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > ...and then we're back to where we are now. So what's the point? I > disagree that the benefits introduced outweigh the cost (in author > confusion and frustration, in implementation investment, in testing, in > specifying what "a good level of conformance" means, etc). We don't have to make it complicated and put conformance levels. But I am sure, with the absence of such a @required feature, the authors will find great many hacks to use new CSS3 feature without making it look silly on CSS2 browsers (classic example would be using less padding when UA cannot display rounded corners), such as using CSS3 selectors *just* for the sole purpose of eliminating CSS2 browsers. That is exactly what is going to happen, style sheets filled with unnecessary selectors. That would create more confusion and frustration, but we'll get used to it, we always do. Not that I don't understand your concerns, but it is a bit sad with how we can't get out of this status quo. -- Emrah BASKAYA www.hesido.com
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:59:10 UTC