Jump to content

Talk:CSS hack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

illegal html

[edit]

I'm in favour of adding that conditional comments are 'illegal html'. Here's why: standard html is standard so that it can be rendered in any browser. In particular, it is standard so that it can be rendered in a speaker, reader, announcer or some other non-standard non-browser client.

Conditional comments are a way of hiding html by putting it inside a comment, where other browsers won't see it. That is a USEFULL technique, but it is explicitly contrary to the intention of standard html.

And is explicitly contrary to the intention of usability guidelines which specify the use of 'standard html'.

In a worst case, you could choose to hide your whole page by putting it inside an [if IE] comment. It would still parse in a strict parser, but it would contain no 'accessible' content.

This is why the HTML standard includes those remarks about not putting any content inside a comment tag. The intention of the standard was to specify that a generic browser should be able to see all content.

Obviously, conditional comments are used for styles, (and probably should have been implemented as a style tag). When conditional comments are not used to hide content, they don't break accessibility. Everyone knows this, and no-one abuses this feature.

But conditional comments are set to become much more common with the introduction of IE7, and I think that something needs to be said about appropriate use and why it's not standard. (david)150.101.166.15 02:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits for IE7 and Bias

[edit]

I made several changes to bring this article up-to-date and to remove some bias against Microsoft/Internet Explorer.--Iamdeadfish 23:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSS filter is not the same as a CSS hack

[edit]

This article should be renamed, moved, deleted, or its content altered to reflect the correct subject --194.54.110.42 13:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Marius[reply]

Marius is right. Wikipedia states: "Hacking refers to the re-configuring or re-programming of a system to function in ways not facilitated by the owner, administrator, or designer" and "A CSS filter or hack is a coding technique used to hide or show CSS markup depending on the browser, version number, or capabilities.". Thus, Conditional comments and Dynamic properties are CSS filters but are not CSS hacks. Juan Pablo de la Torre (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this Resource Alive

[edit]

I found this page while searching for CSS filtering techniques. I decided to correct some terminology, and edit some grammatical errors. I also added some citations. During the course of my search for CSS filtering resources, I have found several instances of link rot. I think it is important to preserve this page since many web designers/developers can benefit from a resource that will endure.mdwong (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix filters

[edit]

The shown properties do not exist, afaik. Probably some CSS3 stuff would be better for illustrating this, for example border-radius -- Phiarc (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link: http://qooxdoo.org/documentation/general/webkit_css_styles refers to the set of Prefix filters and give a rational for their existence. The example code does not seem to be correct, however. R39525 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This link points to a "This topic does not exist yet " page. Avernet (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on CSS filter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Source for CSS filter property missing

[edit]

Dear reader,

I would recommend to rename this article as it is IMHO now in conflict with the actual CSS property 'filter'. I was looking for this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/filter when DDG lead me here (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=css+filter&t=ffab&ia=about). Even though the property is still in an experimental state it is well adobted by browsers (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/filter#Browser_compatibility) and having a Wiki article with the same name but completely different content is rather confusing - especially for non-technical readers or new developers I suppose. Not sure if there are articles for single CSS properties, but if there are, then I also propose to use this page for the 'filter' property. Retrovertigo en (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure of article

[edit]

The previous version of this article had several problems with it, including an ambiguous name (filter is also a draft CSS property), extremely outdated content, and a how-to structure. I've moved the article back to the name "CSS hack," removed most of the list of examples, and created a new section called Alternatives to expand on modern alternatives to CSS hacks, which have now largely fallen out of favor (due to the exact criticism mentioned in this article combined with lack of need). Hopefully this helps improve the article, as this is a valuable topic in the context of CSS history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahoogabooga (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CSS hack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CSS_hack&oldid=1201264513"