On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:11:25 +0900, Philippe Wittenbergh <e...@l-c-n.com> wrote:
>On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Jeff Zeitlin wrote: >> Mr Clarke is pushing CSS3 in this book, though he notes that (at the >> time the book was written) support for CSS3 was spotty at best even for >> the Mac (his preferred platform). >Note that CSS3 as a unit doesn't exist. 'CSS3' is a collection of >modules, some of which are in the Candidate recommendation state, some >others are just early (concept) drafts. Those modules are all labeled >with 'CSS' and 'level 3'. >Support is not at all dependent on platform but on rendering-engine >(browser). I seriously doubt Andy would make the claim that support is >better on OS X than other OS. At the time the book was written, he essentially was, as the webkit engine was only available in Safari/Mac. >Modules one seriously can start using include the Selectors module [1], >the border and backgrounds module [2] to name two that more wide support >in various browsers; other modules have at least a partial >implementation in various browsers. For a full list, see [3]. Thank you for these links; they will clearly come in handy. >> He also advocates NOT trying to make >> the presentation of a website look the same in all browsers, but to >> write to the limit of the CSS capabilities of each individual browser, >> and use things like conditional includes, media rules, and @import to >> control what CSS gets seen/used by which browser(s). >Which is a philosophy I fully support. It is called progressive enhancement. No. He specifically denigrates Progressive Enhancement, describing it as "...begins with less capable browsers such as Internet Explorer 6 and then uses CSS selectors to add functionality." His "Transcendent CSS" "abandons the notion that a less-capable browser is the benchmark", and "sets that benchmark squarely where it belongs today, with the CSS2.1 specification and those browsers that support it. It uses all the available CSS2.1 features, not to add visual enhancement, but to accomplish the best design for the most, standards-capable browsers." In other words, design for the MOST capable browser, and then don't try too hard to to support less-capable browser beyond making sure that it doesn't look completely like something I might not want to step in walking down the street. Or do try hard if you want to invest the time and effort - but basically, if Gecko can do it, and you like it, go for it, even if neither Webkit nor Trident support it. Or swap the engine names around as you see fit. [Side question for folks here that do a lot of design and testing: For a given engine and level, do you see differences in the way different browsers render the page? For example, do you see a difference between Lunascape-using-Trident and IE? Or Safari vs Google Chrome?] ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/
