Subject: [css-d] OmniWeb (Mac) CSS hiding

From: outlaw at joseywales.com (Seb Duggan)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:53:21 +0100

Does anyone know of a way of hiding stylesheets from OmniWeb 4.2 and below
for OS X?

I've successfully divided my CSS into basic version, which gets read by all
browsers, and more advanced CSS, which gets read by browsers that understand
@import. This works perfectly in every browser I've thrown it at - including
the betas of OmniWeb 4.5, based on Apple's WebCore.

Unfortunately, OmniWeb 4.2 understands @import, but hasn't a clue about what
to do with the CSS afterwards.

Is there a CSS-based way of hiding styles from OmniWeb? Or would I be better
off detecting the user-agent on the server - and then add any other problem
browsers to my detection list?

Seb

---

From: phiw at l-c-n.com (Philippe Wittenbergh)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:09:30 +0900

> Does anyone know of a way of hiding stylesheets from OmniWeb 4.2 and 

I use <link rel="stylesheet"............media="Screen" />
(note the capital S)
<http://www.macedition.com/cb/resources/macbrowsercsssupport.html>,
scroll down to the bottom.

Philippe

== | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | == | ==

Philippe Wittenbergh

code | design | web projects : <http://www.l-c-n.com/>
online image gallery : <http://www.l-c-n.com/phiw/>
IE5 Mac bugs and oddities : <http://www.l-c-n.com/IE5tests/>

---

From: chris at placenamehere.com (Chris Casciano)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 12:55:27 -0400

> to do with the CSS afterwards.

There's a point at which a user needs to be reminded they're using a flawed
product by seeing things break. Most site builders don't have the luxury of
putting NN4, IE, Safari or Moz in that category due to the politics of the
marketplace. I consider OmniWeb 4.2- as the exception for a few reasons:

* OmniWeb users as a whole seem to be the types that are more impressed by
UI features and control then they are with presentation of content. While
OmniGroup doesn't promote the fact that their rendering engine is behind
they don't cover the fact up at all. They maintain a more active part in the
general user community then any browser vendor I know and they are very in
tune with the interface features that users are looking for. The only
compelling reason (to date) to use OmniWeb is was for its interface options.
As a result, using the terminology of another recent thread, I would as a
rule consider OmniWeb users to be "clued" and able to roll with the punches.

* The OmniGroup folks are good people who know their product is flawed in
terms of CSS. For some time now they have had plans to rewrite their engine
so haven't totally overhauled their current NN4-like engine, but even with
that in mind they have always (IMExperience) been quick to fix errors that
caused the loss of access to a site. So in many ways having a broken page
has made the browser better in the short term.

So given that OW is a currently active development project (unlike NN4), and
its users are as a (my) rule the informed type (which is unheard of in all
other situations) and keep on top of software updates, I generally take the
stance that a site for a general audience should do very little to
accommodate OW users.

Please don't try and convince me that I'm wrong here, the above wasn't
intended to convince anyone of anything. Just thought it be appropriate to
state my (formed after 2 yrs of watching this very open community-like
project, cause I'm a software geek that way) position on the matter.

-- 
[ Chris Casciano ]  [ [email-masked] ]
[ see things  @  http://www.placenamehere.com ]
[ read words   @   http://www.chunkysoup.net/ ]

---

From: css-discuss at alex.cloudband.com (Alex Robinson)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:32:11 +0100

>> Does anyone know of a way of hiding stylesheets from OmniWeb 4.2 and

There is another way to hide CSS from OmniWeb which doesn't rely on an
external files like the Codebitch method does

<http://www.fu2k.org/alex/css/test/OmniWebInlineHack.mhtml>

I'd guess that OmniWeb 4.5 with it's all new rendering engine will now do
the right thing (can't check that myself so any reports on that gratefully
received)