- 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