CSS 1.X vs. 2.X attributes
ceri at submonkey.net
Mon Oct 10 03:32:09 PDT 2005
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 01:25:11PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> Bearing in mind that:
> * min-width is a CSS 2.X (but not CSS 1.X) attribute
> * it may improve the resizing of our front page
> * the following mini-quote from a discussion me and des@ took part in
> # Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:21:17 +0300
> # From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at ceid.upatras.gr>
> # On 2005-10-10 12:03, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des at des.no> wrote:
> # >Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at ceid.upatras.gr> writes:
> # >> How about specifying a minimum of 765px and then a width of 75%?
> # >>
> # >> min-width: 765px;
> # >> width: 75%;
> # >>
> # >> That should do the trick.
> # >
> # > Ah, I didn't know about min-width; it's not in CSS1.
> # You're right, of course. It is part of CSS 2.X. I'm not sure what is
> # the CSS standards level we want to be compatible with, so I'll have to
> # ask the folks at freebsd-www about using min-width or other CSS 2.X
> # attributes.
> What is our current policy (assuming we actually _have_ one) about using
> CSS 1.X vs. 2.X attributes in stylesheets for the web site?
I think it's probably OK. They'll just get ignored by browsers that
don't understand them, and the alternative in this instance is to not
include it any way as I understand it.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former. -- Einstein (attrib.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-www/attachments/20051010/1932f3d3/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-www