- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:36:13 -0700
- To: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/8/29 Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>: >> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/2500 >> >> Presto: none >> WebKit and Blink: only the non-standard selectedStylesheetSet, but setting >> it does nothing. >> Gecko: all except the non-standard selectedStylesheetSet >> IE10: none >> > [...] >> Basically because the feature has had its chance to prove itself and it has >> failed. >>> Because it isn't popular? >> Yes. >> >>> Because it isn't implemented in browsers? >> Yes. >> >>> Because it wouldn't be useful, helpful? >> It could be useful for some users, but it seems to me like the user demand >> hasn't been strong enough. > > Isn’t this a circular argument? How do you expect people to use a > feature if there is zero support? This is not being done because there > is no browser support, not that there is no browser support because > people aren’t using it. You can’t expect anything to be found in the > wild if there is no browser support. > > I tried using this a long time ago and gave up because there is no > browser support. Why are we dropping more and more things from the > standards and changing things to have illogical semantics instead of > fixing the browsers? "Patches welcome." ^_^ Specs are intended to document reality, and guide it a short distance ahead. When a spec leads ahead but nobody follows for a long time, we do a disservice to authors by pretending that it's still something that will shortly appear in browsers. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 23:37:00 UTC