W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2000

Re: UI WD (compliant browser)

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000221153537.3739.qmail@web904.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
--- Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Matthew Brealey wrote:
> >> It is true that unit-less values for left and top are not valid CSS,
> but
> >> that
> >> means the content/webpage is not compliant - not the browser.
> >
> > No. It means that the browsers are not compliant because the pages
> > wouldn't exist if the browsers didn't tolerate them.
> Non-compliance by indirection?  I understand the blame you are laying at
> the
> feet of the browsers, but I'm not sure it is reasonable to call it
> non-compliance. (Exception: CSS-1 section 7.1)

If there is an exception, it's incompliant - you can't say 'It's compliant
with the exception of X.'. Either it is compliant or it isn't. If there is
an exception, it is not compliant.

> Which came first?  Liberally written pages or liberally accepting user
> agents?
In this case, the latter clearly. There would be no liberally written
pages if they didn't work.

There existed very clearly defined error-handling behaviour for CSS, the
user agents chose to ignore it. As a result when people write invalid
pages, they are not made aware of the fact, so dangerous behaviour is
encouraged and future extensions to CSS are damaged even before there

> And once the liberally written pages proliferated, 

There were no liberally written CSS pages prior to liberally written

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!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 10:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:53 UTC