Freelance Traveller wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:49:43 -0800, Thierry Koblentz > <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Quoting me in >>] > >>> Question the first: Is this a widely-accepted philosophy in the >>> web-design community, and is it being widely adopted - and should it >>> be? > >> I think this is the right approach, but note that most of the time there is >> no need to control what is sent to a particular browser as a property which >> is not supported is simply ignored. >> For example consider this: > >> .myBox { >> border:1px solid #333; >> -moz-border-radius:3px; >> -webkit-border-radius: 3px; >> border-radius: 3px; >> } > > This appears to be "trying to make the page appear 'the same' (or at > least very similar) in all browsers", while using the advanced > capabilities that might be available. Mr Clarke is suggesting > otherwise; an example in the book shows, for example, the serving of a > completely black-and-white-and grey page when viewed with IE6, but full > color (and certain graphical accents are completely different) when > viewed with FireFox.
You can still support IE6- but some authors just don't want to bother understanding why IE6- has shocking CSS2.1 support or why a document is rendered broken in IE6-. I agree with Andy Clarke by sending IE6/Win un-styled pages but their is also that user agent IE5/Mac. > I understand that one cannot expect to see THE SAME THING in all > browsers, as though the screen was a printed page; nevertheless, the > philosophy that I learned when I was first starting web design (and the > use of CSS) was to try to avoid radical differences in the appearance > from browser to browser, or screen size to screen size. That's what > I've done with my website at http://www.freelancetraveller.com - but it > appears that Mr Clarke disagrees with this philosophy, embracing its > opposite, and THAT is what I am questioning. I also disagree with that backwards philosophy. I attempt to suggest of philosophy of styling a page with future support in mind. My own test pages shows this philosophy. >>> Question the second: What is the current level of support for CSS3? >>> There are some interesting ideas in CSS3, which I would like to be able >>> to use - but I'd like to know that the support is there and relatively >>> stable before attempting to use it. >> This is a great resource: >> http://a.deveria.com/caniuse/ > > Thank you; this does indeed appear to be quite useful - and tells me > that CSS3 is not ready for prime time, and probably should not yet be > used as I'd like to use it. I have been using CSS3 for over 2 years. IE9 will have support for rounded corner so nested divs could be seeing their last days. Here is a page of mine (style is basically from 2008) that uses CSS3 and give some examples. <http://css-class.com/test/css/> -- Alan http://css-class.com/ Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
