- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:00:26 +0100
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Sylvain Galineau: > > That's good, my understanding was that some people in the telcon > > argued why using this for browser sniffing was a good thing. > > I certainly did not and do not consider a good thing. But as it's possible to use > it that way - intentionally or not - it deserves to be brought up as part of the > decision. That I agree with. If this is added to CSS, I think we'll see things like: body { font: 14px/18px boring-old-font } body { font: 14e0px/18e0px shiny-new-font } This kind of sniffing is unprecise; it's unlikely that browsers accepting the scientific notation will support the same features in other areas. > Another example: in its current form, your border-clip proposal in > GCPM results in things like: > > border-clip-top: 3fr 10px 2fr 10px 1fr 10px 10px 10px 1fr 10px 2fr 10px 3fr; Far too simple. It will be: border-clip-top: 3e0fr 1000e-2px .002E2fr 1000000E-5px 1e0fr etc. etc. Did I mention it gives me a headache? :-) BTW, The first implementation of border-clip is in the works [1]. I believe fractions are not supported by this implementation. It may be that fractions are too complex. In any case, adding a new unit (like fractions) is a small change compared to changing how numbers are represented in all of CSS. [1] http://www.princexml.com/roadmap/ -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 11 February 2010 20:01:02 UTC