CSS3?

[Mark Johnson]

http://www.geo cities.com/seanmhall2003/css3/compat.html

Anyone know if Firefox, say, implements just a tad more CSS3 than
this?

I was thinking of downloading. It's free, unlike Opera.

Looks interesting, however.

[dr. zoidberg]

Re: CSS3?

Mark Johnson wrote:
[color=blue]
> http://www.geo cities.com/seanmhall2003/css3/compat.html
>
> Anyone know if Firefox, say, implements just a tad more CSS3 than
> this?
>
> I was thinking of downloading. It's free, unlike Opera.
>
> Looks interesting, however.[/color]

I haven't tested it fot CSS3 (?) but if Firefox dont support it, it will
soon. BTW Firefox is great for surfing, you should really try it.

[Barry Pearson]

Re: CSS3?

Mark Johnson wrote:[color=blue]
> http://www.geo cities.com/seanmhall2003/css3/compat.html
>
> Anyone know if Firefox, say, implements just a tad more CSS3 than
> this?
>
> I was thinking of downloading. It's free, unlike Opera.
>
> Looks interesting, however.[/color]

I can't resolve the above URL. Firefox implements some CSS3 (for example,
:lastchild).

But I can't find a use for this. People publishing websites tend to test them
in IE, for obvious reasons. So when I am looking at their websites, I might as
well use IE.

And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3, if only a
tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that can handle it.

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Mark Tranchant]

Re: CSS3?

Barry Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
> And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3, if only a
> tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that can handle it.[/color]

You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a real
browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet Explorer.

If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.

--
Mark.

[Phil Evans]

Re: CSS3?

Mark Tranchant wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:
>[color=green]
>> And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3,
>> if only a
>> tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that can handle it.[/color]
>
>
> You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a real
> browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet Explorer.
>
> If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.[/color]

I tend to take this view. I've designed sites where the nav block has
-moz-rounded-corners on the :first-child and :last-child for example,
since a containing div with rounded corners allows the internal block's
corners to stick out. Makes things look a bit nicer for gecko users with
no (current ;) downside for IE users.

P

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: CSS3?

On Wed, 19 May 2004, Mark Tranchant wrote:
[color=blue]
> You can use it as a degradeable enhancement.[/color]

That's the theory, indeed. WWW-conforming client agents are supposed
to ignore any CSS constructs which they don't understand.
[color=blue]
> Then when people try a real
> browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet Explorer.[/color]

History shows that IE will make a guess at anything which it doesn't
understand, and often enough turn it into a disaster.
[color=blue]
> If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.[/color]

There are ways of hiding progress from those client agents which can't
handle it, hmmm?

all the best

[Barry Pearson]

Re: CSS3?

Mark Tranchant wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson wrote:
>[color=green]
>> And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3,
>> if only a tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that
>> can handle it.[/color]
>
> You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a
> real browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet
> Explorer.
>
> If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.[/color]

When I want to change the world, I don't resort to futile gestures or
headbanging. I get onto television & radio to make my views known. I talk to
the press. I communicate with government ministers & members of parliament. I
work with lobby groups. I've given evidence to a parliamentary committee.

I can't make the world change according to how I develop my websites! I am
just one of many millions. So are you.

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Mark Tranchant]

Re: CSS3?

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
> Mark Tranchant wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>If everyone took your view, there'd be no progress.[/color]
>
> When I want to change the world, I don't resort to futile gestures or
> headbanging. I get onto television & radio to make my views known. I talk to
> the press. I communicate with government ministers & members of parliament. I
> work with lobby groups. I've given evidence to a parliamentary committee.[/color]

What - advising them not to use IE?!

--
Mark

[Keith Bowes]

Re: CSS3?

Barry Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> And when I am testing my own pages, there is no point in using CSS3, if only a
> tiny proportion of people in the world use browsers that can handle it.
>[/color]

There's a definite chicken/egg problem here. But if many people enhance
their sites for modern browsers and advertise so, there may be positive
effects.

I guess people just get tired of this though; years ago, IE was in the
minority and everyone swooned and started using CSS, document.all, and a
bunch of other junk, but why not know? Evil software dictatorship that
everyone's too afraid to disobey?

But we're not changing the world. We're just enhancing the experience
of those who know better than use IE, and trying to educate those who
still use it.

[Firas]

Re: CSS3?

Phil Evans wrote:[color=blue]
> Mark Tranchant wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a
>> real browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet Explorer.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> I tend to take this view. I've designed sites where the nav block has
> -moz-rounded-corners on the :first-child and :last-child for example[/color]

From the frying pan into the fire?

[Phil Evans]

Re: CSS3?

Firas wrote:[color=blue]
> Phil Evans wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Mark Tranchant wrote:[/color]
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> You can use it as a degradeable enhancement. Then when people try a
>>> real browser, they can see the difference versus, say, Internet
>>> Explorer.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>> I tend to take this view. I've designed sites where the nav block has
>> -moz-rounded-corners on the :first-child and :last-child for example[/color]
>
> From the frying pan into the fire?[/color]

In what sense? Assuming you mean using proprietary CSS extensions, I've
made my peace with that. The HTML is valid and (hopefully) logically
marked up, so the structure is sound. I'm not relying on the rounded
corners for site usability or functionality, they're just an additional
visual treat for people who use gecko browsers. If I was using a
proprietary extension which rendered the site unusable on browsers which
didn't support it, I'd be worried, but I don't see any harm in my
current attitude . . .

Though of course I'm keen to hear alternate views :)

P

[Firas]

Re: CSS3?

Phil Evans wrote:[color=blue]
> Firas wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Mark Tranchant wrote:
>>> I tend to take this view. I've designed sites where the nav block has
>>> -moz-rounded-corners on the :first-child and :last-child for example[/color]
>>
>> From the frying pan into the fire?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> In what sense? Assuming you mean using proprietary CSS extensions, I've
> made my peace with that.[/color]

Yup, that :)

The HTML is valid and (hopefully) logically[color=blue]
> marked up, so the structure is sound.[/color]

Does the CSS validate? I'm not a validity fetishist--as in, writing
valid markup just for the sake of just passing the test of validity--but
it stands for interoperabilit y in my mind.

I'm not relying on the rounded[color=blue]
> corners for site usability or functionality, they're just an additional
> visual treat for people who use gecko browsers.[/color]

Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
those who use IE?

If I was using a[color=blue]
> proprietary extension which rendered the site unusable on browsers which
> didn't support it, I'd be worried, but I don't see any harm in my
> current attitude . . .
>
> Though of course I'm keen to hear alternate views :)[/color]

Here's mine, then. Gecko-specific extensions work *just* for gecko. It's
not worse than using <marquee> (back when it wasn't even considered to
be standardized) and netscape-specific hacks. That got us into a huge
mess, didn't it.

This is not just ivory-tower theory; there's already this in the works:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-bo...-border-radius.
I'm not sure whether Mozilla supports it or not, but they should be
pressed to. And opera and IE and whatnot. Write once, read everywhere
(and on everything.)

When it comes down to it, of course, there is no real harm in using a
couple of browser-specific enhancements; the harm comes when it becomes
an overdone crutch.

Wow, my tone is really dry here--to clarify, I'm just a novice and I
don't really have a grasp on web authoring theory: I'm just relaying
what I've picked up. It could all be relative.

[kchayka]

Re: CSS3?

Firas wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
> those who use IE?[/color]

The only ones who think coloring scrollbars is a neat effect are the web
authors who do it. It just creates usability problems, whereas mozilla's
rounded corners do no harm.

There's a big difference, mate.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Jim Ley]

Re: CSS3?

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:14:12 -0500, kchayka <usenet@c-net.us> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Firas wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
>> those who use IE?[/color]
>
>The only ones who think coloring scrollbars is a neat effect are the web
>authors who do it. It just creates usability problems, whereas mozilla's
>rounded corners do no harm.
>
>There's a big difference, mate.[/color]

Except of course the CSS working don't think it's a bad thing, they
just don't think it's easy to specify due to different platforms
having different scrollbar elements.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Firas]

Re: CSS3?

kchayka wrote:[color=blue]
> Firas wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Would you use scrollbar colouring as an additional visual treat for
>>those who use IE?[/color]
>
>
> The only ones who think coloring scrollbars is a neat effect are the web
> authors who do it. It just creates usability problems, whereas mozilla's
> rounded corners do no harm.
>
> There's a big difference, mate.
>[/color]

Oh please. This is arbitary. I know users who like coloured scrollbars.

Anyway, we're talking about different things here. Would you use IE-only
code that is not a usability problem?