3 ms·
No I get that but I now have to look at it three times. Say I am using some feature, f, then I have to go check the case where the browser supports @supports bu
by dvcc 10y ago
No I get that but I now have to look at it three times. Say I am using some feature, f, then I have to go check the case where the browser supports @supports but not @supports(f), supports @supports(f) and does not support @supports, since the styling changes are not all in isolation.
Now to make it even crazier say we have another feature f1 that somehow impacts the case of @supports(f). We'll need to check five different cases (@s(f) + @s(f1), !@s(f) + @s(f1), etc...). It seems like I might as well just find the minimum feature set I can use and just go ahead with that. Anything more and there would be too much mental work for me.
- talmand 10y agoWell, if you are fine with the minimum feature set then start with that. Then use the @supports for the enhanced version to make things nicer for everything other than IE. Just don't check for browsers not supporting @support. To be fair, I haven't used it on a production site so far.
- marcosdumay 10y agoIf you are not fine with the minimum feature set, it is not the "minimum feature set" and the in-browser app that you are writing will not work with it. I get what is so compelling about it, but I don't think I've ever seen anybody use such things correctly in practice. At least not on the web.