- From: Rijk van Geijtenbeek <rijk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:36:39 +0100
- To: "WWW Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Op Sun, 13 Dec 2009 05:51:22 +0100 schreef Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Steven Simpson <ss@comp.lancs.ac.uk> > wrote: >> On 09/12/09 18:42, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:48 AM, fantasai >>> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >>> >> @supports { >>>> tag { >>>> background: white; >>>> color: gray; >>>> } >>>> >>>> tag { >>>> color: white; >>>> text-shadow: black 0 0 4px !support; >>>> } >>>> >> } I suppose you'd normally put the first declaration outside the supports-block? >>> This seems like a much worse idea for backward-compat reasons. Legacy >>> clients that don't understand !support will blithely apply the >>> color:white and just ignore the next line like normal. >> >> Any better if the scope is @-marked explicitly (as shown above)? The >> whole thing will be skipped if not recognised (right?), and it allows >> other rules that don't contain !support to be dropped. > > Yes, that is better. Best of both worlds, actually; the only > sacrifice is that you're having to throw down a bit more syntax. You > get things ignored in legacy UAs that don't understand the @supports > rule, and you minimize the chances of authors using this to > browser-detect rather than feature-detect, for the reasons I explained > above. Not minimize the chance - but you'll certainly postpone the date when authors can use this for browser-detection with several years :) -- Rijk van Geijtenbeek Opera Software ASA http://my.opera.com/Rijk/blog/ "The most common way to get usability wrong is to listen to what users say rather than actually watching what they do." - J.Nielsen
Received on Sunday, 13 December 2009 23:37:17 UTC