On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Chaals McCathieNevile:
Frankly, I am deeply sceptical that the CSS group has managed to solve
the social problem sufficiently well to make the technical solution
noticeably different from hasFeature.
I think the biggest
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:03:19 +0200, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au
wrote:
Chaals McCathieNevile:
Frankly, I am deeply sceptical that the CSS group has managed to solve
the social problem sufficiently well to make the technical solution
noticeably different from hasFeature.
I think the
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Chaals McCathieNevile w...@chaals.com wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:03:19 +0200, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Chaals McCathieNevile:
Frankly, I am deeply sceptical that the CSS group has managed to solve
the social problem sufficiently well to make
Chaals McCathieNevile:
Frankly, I am deeply sceptical that the CSS group has managed to solve
the social problem sufficiently well to make the technical solution
noticeably different from hasFeature.
I think the biggest difference between hasFeature and supportsCSS is
that the implementation
The CSSWG would like to add a new top-level object called CSS that
we can hang several functions and constructors off of, so that we can
avoid the excessive verbosity that's probably required if we just put
everything on window.
(Right now, the only thing we want to add is a supports() function,
Interesting. Perhaps that's where CSSOM for Regions could live?
:DG
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
The CSSWG would like to add a new top-level object called CSS that
we can hang several functions and constructors off of, so that we can
avoid the
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
The CSSWG would like to add a new top-level object called CSS that we
can hang several functions and constructors off of, so that we can avoid
the excessive verbosity that's probably