W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1999

Re: <no subject>

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <19991103122114.24731.rocketmail@web902.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- Tantek Celik wrote:

> Well, if it was fully unbuggy then it probably
> wouldn't need to be a beta
> right ;-)
> 
> Yes, full CSS1 support means we are doing our best
> to address all CSS1 bugs
> (in addition to other bugs of course), but I'm
> certainly not going to make
> any claims that the current beta builds are fully
> unbuggy.

Ian Hickson wrote:

> 
> Its a beta for pete's sake! The idea of betas is to
> _find_ the bugs...
> 
> If there were no bugs and it was feature complete,
> then it would not be a
> beta, it would be a release!


I probably should have made myself clearer. Obviously
every browser has bugs, and many of them will not be
discovered or documented for some time.

What I really wanted to know was whether _documented_
bugs have been removed (for example, does <span
style="font-family: "A font without an 'a'">a</span>
result in an 'a').


=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 1999 07:21:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:01 GMT