Re: Trumping bad proprietary code.

Barney Carroll wrote:

> Meanwhile, you’ll be pleased to know other browsers are implementing
> zoom too:
> http://cat-in-136.blogspot.com/2010/09/unofficial-css-property-zoom.html
>
>WebKit is the new Trident!

Pleased ?  No.  I would like browsers and rendering engines to
implement exactly what the spec. requires, neither more nor less.
Then /all/ of our lives would be greatly simplified.

Tom Livingston wrote:

> If you could get into the proprietary code to (presumably) remove
> the offending property, I wouldn't call that "hacking".

Well, it's hacking in the sense that when a new release
comes out, I will have to retrofit my hack, which is
what I was having to avoid having been bitten with that
very problem today ...

> But, as many have said here in other threads, the validator is a
> guideline, not a law. We know what the purpose of zoom is and
> subsequently why your code isn't validating. I personally would be
> able to live with that.

Mumble mumble mumble.  It is not validator-compliance that
I am seeking; it is W3C standards compliance, which is
(sometimes) a very different kiddle of fish ...

Ah well, my thanks to you both for your advice.

Philip Taylor
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [[email protected]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/