- From: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:46:24 -0700
- To: Simetrical <simetrical@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Alan Gresley" <alan@css-class.com>, "Joshua Cranmer" <Pidgeot18@verizon.net>, "CSS 3 W3C Group" <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 11, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Simetrical wrote:
> Of course, (2) could be solved by introducing @media
> supports-property(...) or whatever. This would of course lead to
> things that look like
>
> @media supports-property(-moz-border-radius) and not
> supports-property(border-radius) { /* Fx2 */
>
> (similar things could be done without resorting to vendor-specific
> properties). So if you do this you may as well allow explicit UA
> sniffing as well, since people are going to come up with really
> reliable lists of rule sets very quickly and you're just making their
> code uglier.
Another problem with "supports" is that I've seen other situations
where scrollbars are drawn in different places (it involved overflows
inside other overflows, with non-wrapping white-space and absolute
positioning thrown in). Something like that could not be written with
a "supports" statement, because it involved the way several things
were interacting, and a rendering result that was not a yes or no
answer. That kind of thing will continue to crop up as both CSS
features and author designs get more and more sophisticated.
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 15:47:02 UTC