- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:40:13 +0000
- To: Tom Livingston <tomliv@gmail.com>, Barney Carroll <barney.carroll@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-validator-css@w3.org" <www-validator-css@w3.org>, css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Barney Carroll wrote: > Meanwhile, you’ll be pleased to know other browsers are implementing > zoom too: > http://cat-in-136.blogspot.com/2010/09/unofficial-css-property-zoom.html > >WebKit is the new Trident! Pleased ? No. I would like browsers and rendering engines to implement exactly what the spec. requires, neither more nor less. Then /all/ of our lives would be greatly simplified. Tom Livingston wrote: > If you could get into the proprietary code to (presumably) remove > the offending property, I wouldn't call that "hacking". Well, it's hacking in the sense that when a new release comes out, I will have to retrofit my hack, which is what I was having to avoid having been bitten with that very problem today ... > But, as many have said here in other threads, the validator is a > guideline, not a law. We know what the purpose of zoom is and > subsequently why your code isn't validating. I personally would be > able to live with that. Mumble mumble mumble. It is not validator-compliance that I am seeking; it is W3C standards compliance, which is (sometimes) a very different kiddle of fish ... Ah well, my thanks to you both for your advice. Philip Taylor
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 15:40:40 UTC