Re: [Trinidad] added browser version support in skinning TRINIDAD-799

>
> Glauco P. Gomes
>
> Blake Sullivan escreveu:
>> OK, how about
>>
>> option 5)  the version feature is a String that matches the native
>> "major.minor.whatever" format of the browser's engine.  If the
>> browser's engine uses non "." for separating versions, "." is used
>> instead.
>>
>> For matches, the "*" character is allowed in any version section.
>> For comparisons, the "*"  is always a valid match regardless of <, >,
>> or =  comparison
>>
>> For comparisons where the comparison side contains fewer version
>> sections than the actual browser version, the comparison side is
>> padded with * version sections and the comparison occurs as above.
>>
>> For comparisons where the comparison side contains more version
>> sections than the actual browser version, the browser version is
>> padded with 0 version sections and the comparison occurs as above.
>>
>> // user wants to match IE 5, actual browser version ie 5.5
>> @agent ie and (version:5)
>>
>> matches because version:5 expands to version 5.* and 5.* matches 5.5
>>
>> @agent ie and (min-version:5)
>>
>> matches because version:5 expands to version 5.* and 5.*  < 5.5 = true
>>
>> @agent ie and (max-version:5)
>>
>> matches because version:5 expands to version 5.* and 5.* > 5.5 = true
>>
>> // actual browser version gecko 1.9
>> @agent gecko and (min-version:1.9.2)
>>
>> does not match because the browser version 1.9 expands to 1.9.0 and
>> 1.9.2 is > than 1.9.0
>>
>> // actual browser version gecko 1.9
>> @agent gecko and (min-version:1.9.*)
>>
>> matches because the browser version 1.9 expands to 1.9.0 and 1.9.* ==
>> 1.9.0
>>
>> -- Blake Sullivan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Blake Sullivan said the following On 4/17/2008 12:31 PM PT:
>>> If we agree that we like the we like the media query syntax and that
>>> the only issue is how to handle less than (as opposed the <=) for
>>> the max-version, then we can just collect up the proposals and pick
>>> one:
>>>
>>> 1) The verbose and explicit  (max-version-less-than:8).
>>> 2) Define that for the version feature, max-version means < not <=.  
>>> Inconsistent with other uses of max (max-version:8)
>>> 3) Let the skinning author provide enough precision to avoid the
>>> need to distinguish between < 8 and <= a number that apporaches 8
>>> (max-version:7.99)
>>> 4) Add an operator suffix (max-version-lt:8)
>>>
>>> 1) is gross
>>> 2) is potentially confusing due to inconsistency
>>> 3) might not be immediately obvious and could theoretically have
>>> precision problems
>>> 4) is not immediately obvious either but incredibly flexible
>>>
>>> I vote for 3) since it gets the job done and doesn't preclude doing
>>> more later.
>>>
>>> -- Blake Sullivan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew Robinson said the following On 4/17/2008 11:53 AM PT:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html
>>>>
>>>> @import url("loudvoice.css") aural;
>>>>
>>>> so here are multiple groups of characters that show that spaces are
>>>> acceptable (import url and aural keywords in one "bunch")
>>>>
>>>> url("loudvoice.css")
>>>> shows that parenthesis with at least one argument is acceptable
>>>>
>>>> @media screen, print {
>>>> Shown that a comma separated list, unlike normal CSS selectors applies
>>>> to the whole @ (meaning that it wasn't "@meda screen, @media print")
>>>>
>>>> From css3 (http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-reader/):
>>>> @import "my-print-style.css" print;
>>>> here, a quoted string is permissible (goes with the url values in
>>>> CSS rules)
>>>>
>>>> <?xml-stylesheet href="style1.css" type="text/css"
>>>>   media="screen and (color) and (max-width: 400px"?>
>>>> <?xml-stylesheet href="style2.css" type="text/css"
>>>>   media="reader and (max-device-ratio: 1/1)"?>
>>>> Hmmm.... interesting, but do we want to reuse something that relates
>>>> to CSS but is not in a CSS file?
>>>>
>>>> @media reader and (grid: 0)
>>>> Ah, now we are talking. This looks like what Blake was referring to
>>>>
>>>> From http://www.css3.info/preview/media-queries/:
>>>> @media all and (min-width: 640px) {
>>>> Even better, showing an "all" keyword and having "normal CSS
>>>> properties" in parens.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.css3.info/preview/attribute-selectors/:
>>>> Do we dare take RegExp like syntax from attr. selectors and apply them
>>>> to @agent rules?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I can see Blake's suggestion being backed by these, but IMO
>>>> "max-version-less-than:8" is too long to remember.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps just:
>>>> IE 5.5 or greater:
>>>> @agent ie and (min-version: 5.5)
>>>>
>>>> IE 5.0 or greater:
>>>> @agent ie and (min-version: 5)
>>>>
>>>> IE >= 5.0 and < 6.0:
>>>> @agent ie and (version: 5)
>>>> or (I like this one less):
>>>> @agent ie and (major-version: 5)
>>>>
>>>> IE <= 6.0:
>>>> @agent ie and (max-version: 6)
>>>>
>>>> IE < 6:
>>>> @agent ie and (max-version: 5.9)
>>>>
>>>> IE >= 6.0 and < 8.0:
>>>> @agent ie and (min-version: 6) and (max-version: 7.9)
>>>> same as:
>>>> @agent ie and (min-version: 6) and (max-version: 7)
>>>>
>>>> IE >= 6.0 and <= 8.0:
>>>> @agent ie and (min-version: 6) and (max-version: 8.0)
>>>>
>>>> IE >= 6.0 and <= 8.x:
>>>> @agent ie and (min-version: 6) and (max-version: 8)
>>>>
>>>> So x.y (ie 5.5) means precisely that, no vagueness and x (ie 6) means
>>>> major version x regardless of minor version. If it is too hard to
>>>> parse the decimal and remember it, "max-major-version",
>>>> "min-major-version" and "major-version" could be used for integer only
>>>> comparison with the major version and "max-version", "min-version" and
>>>> "version" could be used for full major.minor comparison.
>>>>
>>>> I think using something like 7.9 or  7.99 could theoretically be used
>>>> for less than but not equal to. I think the fewer number of keywords
>>>> the clearer it will be to use. Just my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Just adding some thoughts to chew on since concrete ideas were
>>>> asked for.
>>>>
>>>> -Andrew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Cristi Toth
>>>> <cristi.toth@...> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right, I should have discussed the format before committing
>>>>> it.
>>>>> I started fixing the issue using the format that was specified
>>>>> there...
>>>>> (there weren't to many comments on that issue btw...)
>>>>>  During I was fixing it, I noticed that XSS suppported multiple
>>>>> versions,
>>>>> so I adapted what was suggested on the issue to support that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, lets get this subject out in a new thread
>>>>> and stick here to discussing the format.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guys, those of you that suggested some general guidelines, they
>>>>> all sound
>>>>> good,
>>>>> but please try to think of some concrete format that comply with
>>>>> those
>>>>> guidelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we decide a final format and implement it until its get
>>>>> released, then no
>>>>> big harm done.
>>>>>  So please be constructive ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for any feedback!
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Cristi Toth
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> Codebeat
>>>>> www.codebeat.ro
>>>>>    
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>