- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:08:38 -0500
- To: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
- CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Emrah BASKAYA wrote: > So how would @require hurt us more than the current situation does? Mostly in terms of the amount of work needed to get it to happen. > Oh, and it is 100% future proof, as things would only get better with better standards > support. Assuming the future brings better standards support instead of the standards redefining how things should work (like CSS2.1 did for generated content, say), and making used-to-be-compliant impls effectively non-compliant. > ->I can make my design stand-out using new CSS features, while making > sure I am providing an optimized experience for older UA's. Without > "required", I don't have *as many* options as I would have with it, do > I? (and it is not all that bad to have more options on the plate) The question is whether this option brings enough benefit to be worth the work. > ->Given enough time, all browser who claim support will support the > properties more ideally. Perhaps. I have yet to see that happening. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 17:08:52 UTC