- From: Andrey Mikhalev <amikhal@abisoft.spb.ru>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:57:34 +0300 (MSK)
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >> i mean vendor of some layout engine may support non-standrd properties >> of another, isn't it? (e.g. to simplify porting/migrating web apps). >> so, in general, you cannot select 'Mozilla only' rules using single >> css property check. > Yes, someone can implement, say, -moz-radius in some other engine. That is > why I think that engine specific rules (a.k.a. @ua) are conceptually wrong. > > If your design requires exactly -moz-radius style then you will use > @media screen and supports(-moz-radius) { } > @media print and supports(-moz-radius) { } > and that will match all engines that support it. Despite any esoteric reasons > why > engine A would want to implement engine B specific attributes. imo css feature/property tests and browser/engine tests are things targeting two different issues. first one intended for creation phase where designer choose how page should look with or w/o modern/vendor css features. ua-type tests targeting site mantainer who should fix something asap now and here, miniminizing posible consequences for other browsers/versions. (yes, there are ways to do this not touching css, but...). > Why you think @else "kills CSS design" and, say, > > @media supports(flow,grid) { ... } > @media not supports(flow,grid) { ... } > > is not? both kills. backward-compatibility parsing rules, property independency, ... hence, looks like only this way possible: @media screen { generic rules } @media screen and [ua/engine/property/module test] { override rules } ugly? > >
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2007 19:58:00 UTC