- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:36:26 +1000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org
On 15/06/2011 2:50 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Alan Gresley<alan@css-class.com> wrote: >> On 14/06/2011 12:25 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >>> I actually think this requirement is good; I think testing for a >>> property-value pair rather than just a property is likely to be the >>> right level of feature detection. I could be wrong, though. >> >> >> After seeing many comments from authors here and in other mailing list over >> many years, the overwhelming consensuses is to query the support of just the >> property. > > That would make it impossible to test if a property was changed to > accept a new kind of value. Can you give examples of current and possible future properties and/or values but keeping in mind that support for @supports is currently not present and such support may come after certain properties and values are un-prefixed and interoperable? > That seems extremely unfortunate. Remember I did state this from an authors perspective and after years of following both the discussions on www-style and css-discuss. Many of these issues about support was for cutting edge CSS3 (from a 2008 perspective), display: inline-block for Gecko, display: table (and properties) for IE or simply issues about support for alpha transparency in both background-color or something like PNGs. Currently there is a crisis among many authors about if they should support IE6, just IE7+, just IE8 or explore this wonderful CSS3 that IE9 and better yet IE10 has supports. Also consider that the use of gradients and SVGs (from kilobytes to bytes) along with the background properties is causing a revolution in approaches to CSS design. > It > also increases the probability of lying - experience has shown that > the less specific the query is, the more likely it will be degraded by > lies. > > ~TJ I agree with this point but why should browsers continue to lie? From my authoring perspective, my main issue has been support of background-size (either the background-property or in background shorthand). Below is how I would solve it. With the current trend towards CSS3 that has many properties and values and to add, very long of syntax, just imagine part of the below in a @supports {...} query? element { background: blue; background: url(better-than-nothing.gif) center /* for IE6- */ background: url(hope-for-the-best.png) center /* for IE7 */ background: url(image3.png) 0% 0% no-repeat, url(image2.png) 0% 0% no-repeat, url(image4.png) right 20px no-repeat, rgba(50, 50, 255, 0.3); background-size: 40% auto, 40% auto, 70% 250px; /* for browsers that don't support background-size in background-shorthand */ background: url(image3.png) 0% 0% / 40% auto no-repeat, -ms-linear-gradient(0deg, rgba(255,255,255,0.5), rgba(0,0,255,0.3)), url(image2.png) 0% 0% / 40% auto no-repeat, url(image4.png) right 20px / 70% 250px no-repeat, rgba(50, 50, 255, 0.3); /* for 1E10 */ background: url(image3.png) 0% 0% / 40% auto no-repeat, url(image2.png) 0% 0% / 40% auto no-repeat, url(images/image4.png) right 20px / 70% 250px no-repeat, rgba(50, 50, 255, 0.3); /* for 1E9 */ background: url(image3.png) 0% 0% / 40% auto no-repeat, -ms-linear-gradient(0deg, rgba(255,255,255,0.5), rgba(0,0,255,0.3)), url(image2.png) 0% 0% / 40% auto no-repeat, url(image4.png) right 20px / 70% 250px no-repeat, rgba(50, 50, 255, 0.3); /* for 1E10 */ background: url(image3.png) 0% 0% / 40% auto no-repeat, linear-gradient(0deg, rgba(255,255,255,0.5), rgba(0,0,255,0.3)), url(image2.png) 0% 0% / 40% auto no-repeat, url(image4.png) right 20px / 70% 250px no-repeat, rgba(50, 50, 255, 0.3); } -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 04:36:55 UTC