- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:51:19 -0700
- To: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> wrote: > On 2013-08-29 15:15 (GMT-0700) Tab Atkins Jr. composed: >> ..."no one uses it" isn't a strong argument against a feature >> >> either, but it is *a* valid argument. Some features are very >> important, but also very niche - that doesn't reduce their necessity >> for the audience that uses them... >> ...I think it's quite reasonable >> >> to conclude that we should go ahead and drop the feature. > > > IMO, lack of usage for this is hugely due to lack of implementation. In the > distant past, there was a time of really was only one browser. What it > offered authors was all that mattered. Later, Mozilla made it two, and > occasionally new things started to matter. Without digging deeply into the > distant past, I'm guessing http://dbaron.org/css/ssui/ had a lot to do with > why this was ever implemented at all, and that NIH played no small part in > why, other than minor roles[1], it never got beyond Mozilla. > > This was all before WebKit even existed, much less morphed into an organ of > the giant Google. The young WebKit didn't need it, because IE didn't have > it. As WebKit grew beyond Mozilla, it turned into chicken & egg, neither > needing it because the other giant didn't have it. > > Meanwhile, few people have been using it precisely because of its limited > support. Why should any but a niche put effort into something only a small > fraction of people would ever enjoy? Widespread use without IE and > Web^HBlink support would be no small shock. > > Given what I know of the history, lack of use in this case seems more like a > counter-argument to removal. Mozilla does have it. People do use it. Its > existence makes a marketing case in favor of player #3 Mozilla, which > removed would provide increased disincentive for users not to switch to > Chrome, or not to switch back to IE, all the while trashing the work of > authors who took the trouble to learn and provide it to web surfers. > > To me, http://dbaron.org/css/ssui/ makes no less sense now than when it was > written. Support for enhanced power to the user should only be removed for > compelling reason(s). I've seen not one such reason in this thread. > > [1] ISTR Opera working with > http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Font/fonts-face-samplesM and my other pages with > AltSS, which do work in the ancient Konqueror 3.5.1x I keep open 24/7, which > still supports pt, in, cm, etc. according to desktop density rather than > arbitrarily WRT a px unit. This kind of chicken-and-egg problem is very real, but for many other features, the lack in some browsers resulted in authors complaining and filing bugs, and the lacking browsers catching up and implementing it. "Only one browser implements it yet" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for preserving features. Arguments involving Mozilla's advertising presence don't seem to be useful here. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 23:52:05 UTC