GuildWiki talk:CSS classes

Browser compatibility
I just noticed that some of the classes here uses CSS rules that have browser compatibility issues. One handy resource to check is http://www.quirksmode.org/css/contents.html. I recommend classes that do not work identically across browsers to be marked with a warning so people make decisions on using those class knowing what to expect. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * PanSola: Defender of IE users. :) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm defending US from getting crap complaints from users using second-rate browsers (specifically, users who refuse to upgrade or otherwise unable to use IE7 and thus still use IE6). q-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen the sig-stack code without any css applied (it'll just be at normal size, one after the other), so I hope IE6 shouldn't mangle it too much. --◄mendel► 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what IE I am using. :p Would it be wrong of us to publicly endorse FireFox, with something like "This site only guaranteed to display correctly using FF"? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be too elitist even if I hope nobody on the planet uses IE at all. The safest thing to declare would be support for all stable versions of major browsers.  So IE7, FF3, Opera 9.x, Safari 3.x.  No official support for Chrome until Google feels like labeling their browser at version 1.0 or above. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * An alternative is to openly support CSS3 compatibility, using CSS 3 specifications whereever it makes sense, completely ignoring how many browsers implements them. In some cases, even FF3 is going to fail (and perhaps in rare cases IE will work where FF fails).  In this case our support would be for the open standards.  The more websites start using certain standards, the more browsers will care about implementing them. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I like that idea. GuildWiki: Improving the browsers of the future or somesuch...we can be a force for political change (in the tech world)! [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, supporting even CSS 2.0/2.1 for a start would rid us of the IE6 obligation. --◄mendel► 09:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just curious if this breaks any Wikia policies. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. As long as it's progressive enhancement, so that users of better browser get a better experience but that users of inferior browsers can still read the content fine, it should be alright with Wikia policies.  But we can always check with Kyle -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with that as long as things aren't outright broken for some users. Just be aware that approximately 10% of your pageviews are from people using IE6, and that number goes up if you include Firefox 2, even lower versions of IE, etc.  So, it is a non-trivial number of people who will have a less-than-optimal experience. --KyleH (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * FF2 is actually pretty good at supporting CSS 2.1. --◄mendel► 19:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Example headers
They mess with the *real* TOC. Suggest moving examples to a separate demonstration page to be regular-linked (not transcluded). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought the readers who use CSS would be smart enough to see through that (and maybe compare the real TOC to the one that has the reduced depth).
 * We could make the screenshot larger to include the header display? Your way is fine with me, though. --◄mendel► 09:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)