On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Jasper St. Pierre <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would disagree with you on backwards compatibility, slightly. I think we > shouldn't try too hard, but we also now have a clear goal for theme authors: > standard CSS. We should obey the goals of the standards, and follow their > guidelines about vendor prefixes. When we implement CSS features, we should > try to implement them to the letter of the spec, not half-ass it, and if it's > not ready, put a vendor prefix behind it. > > That's a guarantee I think we can make for now, which should help signify to > theme authors that their work is as volatile as CSS itself. > Oh yes, that is very important and I don't think I ever mentioned it: We know very well where we want to be when we're done. We know that we want to define GTK as a set of boxes and we know that these boxes will conform to the CSS box model and be styled using CSS properties. The behavior of these properties is specified in the CSS specifications and conforms to what browsers do for all the standard CSS properties that we do support.
We are not there yet, but we know where we are going. Benjamin _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
