On 14 Feb 2007, at 01:13:52, Ben Buchanan wrote:
My concern with this whole approach is expecting people to go back and remove the non-standard rules. In the real world we're going to be stuck with the non-standard stuff for a long time to come; particuarly when developers use them without understanding the full situation.
The non-standard stuff may add a few bytes to file sizes, but other than that it's harmless: a compliant CSS parser which doesn't recognise the non-standard rules will "ignore them according to the rules for handling parsing errors" <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ syndata.html#q4>.
Not all developers know the standards as well as the average reader on this list. Plenty learn by copying other CSS, so they might not even know that -moz-opacity *isn't* standard (don't scoff, it happens!).
They'll soon find out when they test it in IE :-)
I don't immediately see the benefit to the UA developers using a custom rule... Why not just use the real thing? I can only assume there's something about the process that I'm not aware of.
Because the real thing doesn't exist yet - of the 31 parts of CSS 3 (not counting the Introduction), just three are currently at the Candidate Recommendation stage (one step before becoming a Recommendation), while two others have been at that stage, then dropped back to Working Draft.
Any use of vendor-specific stuff is purely for experimental purposes, and should never be used in the real world.
Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
