Yes, it is widely known in the epub space that targeting 3.1 or 2 is the more sane option.
replyWith EPUB compatibility issues CSS should always be suspect number 1. Using "modern" CSS features and complaining about missing flex boxz grid, etc is a web developer's mindset.
Just because EPUB shares some of the stack with the web doesn't mean they perfectly overlap (or even should).
Hardly any e-ink embedded e-reader devices use a browser for rendering, they all use purpose built HTML/CSS parsing and rendering toolchains, are baked into firmware and updated once in a blue moon. (If you're interested look at koreader's crengine or Crosspoint reader which runs on an ESP32!)
The blog post reeks of overly confident AI prose. But don't be fooled.
Shouldn't a CSS engine just ignore directives it doesn't know? At least it shouldn't fail without an error.
replyCame here to say exactly that: CSS was designed to be friendly and just ignore any line it doesn’t understand. It’s the whole point of browsers and progressive improvements.
replyAre we blaming the spec and the author of the post for trying to conform to the checks, instead of blaming Adobe or Kobo for using 16-year old technology that ISN’T spec-compliant? -.-
replyYes. sometimes specs are badly designed. Targeting a constantly moving goalpost for a spec mainly implemented by embedded devices seems to me like, best case, questionable judgement
reply