Compatibility with CSS

[Betelgeuse]

I have just started with the CSS. I am having a question about the compatibilities with it. CSS is a wonderful tool. If you remember the definition of two specific dates you may be wondering spontaneously, but why were not used from the start? I think that members over here are having pretty knowledge about the programming languages, since you have explained many things very neatly. Now I too want some help from you members. Please provide me the details about the compatibilities in CSS. I am expecting some quick response from your side.

[PARRISH]

CSS is a wonderful tool. If you remember the definition of two specific dates you may be wondering spontaneously, but why were not used from the start?

The problem is that the full realization by the browser makers and authors of the importance of adopting standard languages has really struggled to assert itself. Netscape introduced proprietary extensions, Explorer replied. And the poor web-designer to find solutions that reconcile the opposites. In everything you forgot to strengthen support for W3C languages. And the CSS remained a niche thing for a few followers who did not even have a tool to test the potential serious A first turn on the browser side of the mass came with Explorer 5, the first to offer an adequate support of the language. The fourth-generation predecessors, it offered a less than acceptable.

[RichiRich]

Today we can count on navigation tools that support virtually all of the CSS2 specification. With a browser, however, that surpasses all others in this area: Mozilla. Microsoft has continued his work of adaptation, disappointing a bit with Explorer 6, but turning out an excellent browser for Mac. Despite all the way CSS is still paved with so many problems for developers. Two major sources of difficulty:

1. compatibility with older browsers
2. the different ways of rendering certain property

They are different problems, so they want different answers.

[Ackley]

As for backward compatibility you have two ways. You can choose not worth the trouble to waste time for Netscape 4. Simple, brutal, but entirely acceptable. The evaluation of statistics on visits and software users is the key to making a decision like that. he second way is to compromise, the method known as cross-browser. These strategies and tricks that can be used to preserve a minimum of compatibility with the past without sacrificing the benefits of CSS for modern browsers. Essentially, however, can never do without building separate style sheets, adaptations to the new and the old browser. In cross-browser CSS had highlighted three basic strategies to solve the problem:

• the use of a universal CSS
• Javascript browser sniffing to serve each with the appropriate CSS
• @ import method

Given that a universal style sheet is very reductive, the other two approaches differ in the source of the solution. By sniffing everything is delegated to a series of often complicated script. With the @ import method will remain in (X) HTML / CSS.

[pancham]

The problem lies in how each browser, while supporting a property, apply. A huge example. Explorer 5 Windows supports the use of keywords to define the size of fonts, but does so in its own way, interpreting the medium value in a wrong way (it makes the text larger than necessary). Here, the strategy can not be unique. It should be considered on a case by case basis. Often the properties involved in these differences are not important and just as often the problems arise on matters such as advanced dynamic positioning of elements. The fact is that the only solution I can give you: test your pages. Always. With as many browsers as possible. Evaluate the results and if you think that the differences are negligible proceed without problems. If the differences are many, or which could affect the page layout rely on Google or some good resource on CSS to solve the problem. One trick is sooner or later invented, stay calm. There are two resources that I propose, the first is preventive, the second for the hopeless cases.