Re: [WSG] CSS and non-standard properties
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] ***
Re: [WSG] CSS and non-standard properties
Nick Fitzsimons wrote: Any use of vendor-specific stuff is purely for experimental purposes, and should never be used in the real world. It's worth elaborating on this. The danger you face with such things is that the developers have no responsibility to anyone with regards to their own custom properties. They are the results of development towards standardised CSS, are prone to modification in their behaviour by the developers without warning, and are not intended for use. They are, essentially, unreliable. Having said all this, it still makes me happy to occasionally see them in casual use. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] CSS and non-standard properties
given they are doing it with -engine-rule their shouldn't be a problem (the w3c recommends this method for non standard rules). ...which is funny since I've heard they resist the idea of an engine-based selector rule! e.g you could have an opacity rule like : [snip] and the browser engine should pick up the one it supports best. As the engines work out any bugs with opacity (for example) they will hopefully end up using opacity : 50; and you will end up with something like this, assuming MS sits on their keyboards. 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. 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!). 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. -Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] CSS and non-standard properties
On Feb 14, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Ben Buchanan wrote: 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. Take border-radius. When it was first implemented in Gecko, centuries ago, they used (and still use): -moz-border-radius-topleft that was more or less what a then draft was suggesting. Fast-forward, WebKit uses -webkit-border-top-left-radius according to more current drafts. The advantage of using vendor prefixes for experimental properties is obvious. Once a CSS3 draft enters a more stable stage (last-call) or similar, the vendor can always alias their implemented name to the real thing, internally. Who knows what the real property name will be ? Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] CSS and non-standard properties
Paul Bennett wrote: Isn't this the 2007 equivalent of the blink and marquee tags we all know and hate? Another difference, besides what Nick wrote, at least in the case with Opera, is that they advise not using the their vendor specific properties for real world applications. The two tags you mentioned (I'm too polite to type such things), on the other hand, were intended for use. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] CSS and non-standard properties
Hi all, I just noticed via Roger Johansson's blog[1] that the Safari team are building in non-standard CSS properties[2]. I know this is nothing new, as Firefox / Mozilla has it's non-standard CSS commands too (mainly for XUL development?)[3] etc, but wonder what the motivation is. Isn't this the 2007 equivalent of the blink and marquee tags we all know and hate? What advantage does it give to browser vendors to implement non-standard CSS properties? Paul 'Genuinely curious' Bennett [1] http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200702/new_css_properties_in_safari/ [2] http://webkit.org/blog/?p=85 [3] http://www.eightlines.com/neil/mozskin/csscommands.html *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] CSS and non-standard properties
On 8 Feb 2007, at 19:15:07, Paul Bennett wrote: Hi all, I just noticed via Roger Johansson's blog[1] that the Safari team are building in non-standard CSS properties[2]. I know this is nothing new, as Firefox / Mozilla has it's non-standard CSS commands too (mainly for XUL development?)[3] etc, but wonder what the motivation is. Isn't this the 2007 equivalent of the blink and marquee tags we all know and hate? What advantage does it give to browser vendors to implement non- standard CSS properties? These are usually properties specified in the as-yet-incomplete CSS 3. By implementing them now they allow users to test them and, if CSS 3 is ever completed, can immediately enable them using the standard name. Also, note that a W3C Draft can only become a Recommendation (synonymous with standard) if there are working, interoperable real- world implementations from more than one vendor; so once the CSS Working Group finally end their deliberations over CSS 3, having these implementations out there can greatly speed up the process of moving from Candidate Recommendation to Recommendation status. So it's actually pretty much the opposite of blink and suchlike: it's a way of helping the community prepare for future standards, and of ensuring that implementations are available at the time the standard is ratified. 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] ***
