<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Aryeh Gregor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Simetrical%2Bw3c@gmail.com">Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Thomas Powell<<a href="mailto:tpowell@gmail.com">tpowell@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Proposing <nostyle> in the spirit of <noscript><br>
><br>
> Examples<br>
> --------<br>
> 1) Head Usage<br>
> <nostyle><br>
> <meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="0;url=/errors/stylerequired.html"><br>
> </nostyle><br>
><br>
> 2) Body Usage<br>
> <nostyle><br>
> <h2>Warning: Styles required for correct rendering</h2><br>
> </nostyle><br>
<br>
</div>The reason that <noscript> worked is because (IIRC) it was introduced<br>
at the same time as <script>. All browsers that supported <script><br>
also supported <noscript>. <nostyle> would cause all legacy user<br>
agents to render the content even if they supported styles just fine.<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes in the absence of our time machine it seems a bit late doesn't it.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> And yes while that is true and for many situations will work fine, there are<br>
> other cases you won't and you can get a sloppy or even bad results because<br>
> of rendering engine paths. For example, because style is not applied until<br>
> later you have an issue here<br>
><br>
> <h2 class="nostyle"><img src="error.gif">Warning: Styles required for<br>
> correct rendering</h2><br>
><br>
> The network request happens regardless of situation no assuming images on.<br>
<br>
</div>That doesn't seem like a very serious issue. Just don't use images if<br>
you care that much. A large percentage of non-CSS browsers are<br>
probably text-based anyway.<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It isn't but hints at what the motivation was from a real world request (see below)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> For example, using the content property can be somewhat troubling if<br>
> style is removed. For example, consider what happens if you are putting in<br>
> field required indicators<br>
> input[type=text].required:before {content: " (*) "}<br>
<br>
</div>This should just use HTML5's required attribute instead of a class:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-required-attribute" target="_blank">http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-required-attribute</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote><div>Agreed that is the case, this is more documenting the usage of designers not that there isn't an HTML 5 appropriate solution.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Conformant browsers should make it clear to the user that the field is<br>
required even if styles are disabled.<br>
<div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>yes they should. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
> or for offsite links<br>
> a[href^="http://"]:after {content:' ( Offsite Link )';}<br>
<br>
</div>This is non-essential info, and every browser I've heard of exposes it<br>
anyway (e.g., by hovering over the link and looking in the lower<br>
left).<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> or any other dynamic insert this way.<br>
<br>
</div>Do you have any other examples where this is a significant issue?<br>
Those two don't seem like a big deal to me, honestly, even if it were<br>
logistically possible to get <nostyle> supported widely enough to be<br>
useful.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Those were just examples of more valid uses of content actually. Of course as I mentioned below people can abuse this property and then it does become a big deal. But dynamically having content jam in all sorts of stuff client-side seems wrong-headed so I certainly don't suggest codifying bad practices though mitigating them somehow seems appropriate. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
If CSS is necessary for a site to operate, it's probably being<br>
misused. If an author is misusing CSS this badly, it's not clear to<br>
me why they could be expected to reliably use <nostyle>. The contents<br>
of <nostyle> also don't make a difference to almost anyone, so authors<br>
who use it won't really understand the purpose it serves and it will<br>
probably be misused more often than used.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><div>You may be quite right. Understand my purpose of proposing this was mostly due to some contrivances to determine style and no-style support for an effort which is very contingency concerned. The solution that was adopted using scripting, server-side logging particularly triggered by image requests from background-image values or their absence, etc. can figure all cases but it was a mess and thus the "why not have a <nostyle> wouldn't life be easier" So from where you sit yes it is not that important likely, from having to wrestle with it I would have loved to have an easy solution. <br>
<br>Anyway I will say that there is a bit of symmetry of having on/off cases for all the various client-side technologies (img, script, object, etc.), but I see that the off aspect of style could simply be thought of as the markup itself and that is certainly fine it has worked for most so far. <br>
<br></div>