>> I read about the "content:" property way, waaaaaay back in 1998 or so.
>
> damn, I'm truly behind the times... :p
>
> ok, I'm just unaware of the complete spec... I've got the box model
> pretty worked out though... :)

When I was at uni, I'd sit and read the spec from cover to cover. (Even 
though most of it doesn't actually make sense.) I learned loads of cool 
stuff... and then discovered that most of it has no relationship to reality.

>> (In a similar vein, it's supposed to be possible to add drop shadows
>> to text and so on. That didn't work either.)
>
> weirdly enough, I'm aware of latest CSS goodies like drop shadows,
> transitions, gradients, border-radius and so on. Since they are still
> experimental, web browsers tend to have them available only via prefixes
> such as -moz-border-radius or -webkit-border-radius... won't cause any
> problem to browsers unaware of them because html-related techs were
> build around the idea to simply ignore tags and properties they don't
> understand.

So some of these actually work now?

> Imagine if they used a static type system like in haskell: "This page
> can't be shown: a type mismatch has occurred!" :)

Yeah, whatever. It's perfectly possible to avoid this in Haskell (or 
just about any other Turing-complete language). It isn't even especially 
difficult. :-P

>> Fast forward 10 years, and it seems these funky features are actually
>> *implemented* now. (I didn't bother to check whether IE supports it -
>> mainly since I don't give a damn.)
>
> yeah, what percentage of your 2 blog readers would possibly be using IE?...

Maybe if enough web pages are broken in IE, people will start asking why 
MS produces such a defective product. (But I doubt it...)

Post a reply to this message