On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:32:45 +0900
Came this utterance fomulated by Philippe Wittenbergh to my mailbox:
Thanks for your worthwhile reply.
>
> On Oct 9, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Michael Adams wrote:
>
> > I have grown so fond of this technique that i have thought of
> > extending
> > both it and @media in a new direction. If browsers were seen as a
> > type of media you could legally write fixes for any CSS issue in a
> > given browser. The technique would only be applied to future
> > browsers as
> > no current browser sees itself as a media type. THis gives CSS
> > authors a
> > way of applying fixes for inaccuracies or disparate CSS
> > interpretations
> > in the future.
> > ...
> > In the future it could look like this:
> > [Quote]
> > @import url("layout.css");
> > @import url("colour.css");
> > @import url("fonts.css");
> > @import url("ie9hacks.css") ie9;
> > @import url("ff4hacks.css") ff4;
> > @import url("safari4hacks.css") safari4;
> > @import url("opera10hacks.css") opera10;
> > [/Quote]
> > Only the relevant media files for a site would need to be included.
> >
> > I am asking for opinions on this idea. It looks like a good idea to
> > me because i already use the technique, so other opinions are vital
> > before
> > i try to give the idea some steam with w3c or browser
> > manufactureres.
> >
> > Some may say that i should be targeting layout engines direct,
> > or versions of Gecko, Trident, Presto or Webkit. That may be the
> > right way to go, but Chrome uses Webkit with proprietary hacks,
> > hence i went by browser name.
> > ...
> >
> > This would also allow SVG to be fed to compliant browsers as
> > background
> > images without programmed or .htaccess hacks.
>
> You're probably on the wrong list for this. :-)
> You should rather submit your ideas to the CSS-WG www-style mailing
> list [1].
>
I thought this was a CSS discussion list?
> There have been various proposals on that subject like [2], [3].
> Follow the links to replies, etc.
>
> Most implementators have rejected those ideas. Some -some- authors are
>
> very much in favour. Personally, as an author, I strongly dislike
> those ideas, I see that as completely orthogonal to the concept of
> standards.
>
I was intending to target authors without getting the strong
corporate decision style arguments of implementors swaying this
discussion. This list is therefore ideal.
> If those proposals ever see the light of the day, it should definitely
>
> be based on rendering engine detection (Gecko, WebKit, Presto,...) ,
> and not vendor (Firefox, Safari, ...) detection.
>
That is a matter of opinion, the links you provide discuss both
seperately and jointly. Should there be a "Webkit" and "GWebkit" option
for Chrome? IIUC Google have applied in house modifications to Webkit.
> [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/>
> [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Sep/0219.html>
> [3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Oct/0112.html>
>
Thanks for those very useful links. A lot of useful discussion taking
place. It did not sway me though. This is a take it or leave it kind of
rule like @media print. My thought was if you don't like it, you
don't need to use it.
It seems for CSS anyway a far saner method than IE's current conditional
HTML statements (though a direct comparison is apples and oranges).
Looking forward to other learned opinions.
--
Michael
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall
be well
- Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
