Re: Browsers will never get it right [was Re:Blocked-base parsing?]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Emrah BASKAYA wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:34:39 +0300, Ian Hickson <> 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.

In that case we're back to the original proposal, which doesn't work at 
all, as discussed.

> 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.

Yes, that's quite possible. However, the proposed feature wouldn't 
actually help with this case, since you'd end up with browser X claiming 
support for border-radius despite a fatal (but unnoticed when the browser 
shipped) bug. Or some similar thing.

> 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.

Well, we're looking for a solution. It's just that so far all the proposed 
solutions would either not actually help (such as here) or would make 
matters worse (such as "legitimised" UA sniffing).

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:24:50 UTC