Re: WebKit: '-khtml' ?!! (Was: Re: [WSG] Safari DOM inspector)
On Nov 18, 2006, at 8:23 AM, James Ellis wrote: If you run recent version of Konquerer you get a pretty good realisation of what Safari will render a site as - all you have to do us run a Linux box or if you don't want to do that run up a KDE distro Live CD like Kubuntu. There are quite a few bugs in Safari that don't show up in Konqueror, and vice-versa. example: E:last-child is completely br0ken in Safari but works fine in Konqueror. Mac users can install the whole KDE on top of OS X via the Fink project and run it side by side. Compiling took a little over 24 hours on my PowerBook. It runs wonderfully well. It's the right way to do vendor specific extensions to CSS e.g -moz- blah and -khtml-blah etc etc. So ,for instance, Gecko is supposed to ignore everything vendor specific and non -moz-*. I don't think IE has any -ie-* rules, -opera-* maybe ? dunno. For Opera: -o-* Afaik, MSIE didn't have any, up till now. I heard about -mso-, but not seen. Anyway, most of those vendor only extensions are for internal use only [*], and shouldn't be used in an author stylesheet. Except for a few that are implementations of css3 drafts, such as: - webkit-border-radius or -moz-border-radius, to name one that is relatively stable. Even then, use only on an experimental basis, the implementation could change, etc. [*] or for XUL in Gecko's case. 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] ***
WebKit: '-khtml' ?!! (Was: Re: [WSG] Safari DOM inspector)
OmniWeb's inspection kit isn't fully functional yet - the search tool (great idea) doesn't work yet, and the same goes for the metrics and properties tabs. However the style viewer is incredibly useful. It specifies that it is a 'computed style' viewer - an interesting distinction. Gecko happens to be so compliant that such a thing is incredibly rarely useful, and as such its own inspector is great in that it only displays 'read' code. IE has a bastardisation of the two: its inspector reflects the fact that in many cases it digests code and then converts it into 'behaviours', and you often end up with expressions similar in syntax to the notorious hasLayout property. As far as I can see though, WebKit displays what appears to be _every possible relevant property_ along with their values... Very useful for the purposes of allocating bugs. I notice what appears to be WebKit-specific code... Things like -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect ...Which I have seen in effect - proprietary and usually only used in Apple sites since it is naturally not w3 css. There are also more intriguing rules like -khtml-line-break Oddly enough, a right click allows WebKit to search for the clicked term as a Google string - useful enough as Google finds _nothing_. I would love to play around with these, but apparently they are completely undocumented in the public arena (aka the internet)! Regarding my original bug which prompted all this, it reads (by the inspector) as if it shouldn't be (unless, of course, the -khtml comments mean something significant). I may, heaven forbid, resort to hacking Safari to give it uglier specification for the element in question. I seem to remember there is a weird selection method involving seemingly banal child-of-parent-of-child-of etc. specification. Regards, Barney @Mike re:Apple: You're right. It is still a little obscure, isn't it? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: WebKit: '-khtml' ?!! (Was: Re: [WSG] Safari DOM inspector)
On 16 Nov 2006, at 14:37:50, Barney Carroll wrote: -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect ...Which I have seen in effect - proprietary and usually only used in Apple sites since it is naturally not w3 css. It depends what you mean by W3C CSS. The CSS spec allows for vendor- specific extension properties of the form shown; so it is in fact fully compliant with W3C CSS: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#q4 although it is, by definition, not one of the CSS properties specified by the W3C (which I assume was what you meant). I'm not sure what the validator does with this kind of by-the-spec extension property but, if it flags it as an error rather than a warning, it's (IMHO) a flaw in the validator: CSS implementations may not recognize such properties and may ignore them according to the rules for handling parsing errors 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] ***
