W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2002

RE: conformance (was layout solutions blah blah blah)

From: Hoyt, Phil <phil.hoyt@bgminteractive.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:23:13 -0500
Message-ID: <F61568F110EAD411BD350008C7860164091FE447@commercial.globeinteractive.com>
To: "'Jesse McCarthy'" <mccarthy36@earthlink.net>, www-style@w3.org
In defence of the Browser makers: Jesse, reporting bugs admirable and
useful, but I think you would do well to keep your broad judgements on the
quality of software and software companies off this list. It is
counterproductive in that it doesn't point out any fact that was not already
known and only serves to offend and anger people without whom you might not
have a browser at all. Microsoft deserves credit for providing a browser
that (still) provides among the best css support out there. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse McCarthy [mailto:mccarthy36@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 7:11 PM
To: tantek@cs.stanford.edu; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: conformance (was layout solutions blah blah blah)


Perhaps a more comprehensive test suite is desirable, but it should be 
realized that it will never be definitive.  That being the case, it would be

a mistake to use the test suite as a model for developing a browser. As I 
understand it, it is an aid to interpreting the specification and a tool for

testing the implementation of certain discrete features, often in the 
simplest scenario.

From the perspective of implementing CSS in a browser, 
the test suite is clearly not the place to start.  You say that this 
particular bug would have been trivial to fix had you known sooner; frankly,

I find it difficult to understand how the problem ever came into existence.

The test suite is obviously not exhaustive, but more importantly, evaluating

the browser with the test suite should not be considered an alternative to 
implementing the fundamental grammar of the language -- which is spelled out

(seemingly) unambiguously in Appendix B of the spec (not to mention that the

relevant part of this particular syntax is described in plain English in 
section 6.4). 

Typical of Microsoft the self-congratulation is voluminous and pronounced, 
but unearned.  This bug demonstrates the failure of the browser to implement

the most basic of the basic concepts of CSS, as evidenced by its placement
in 
section 1.1 of the spec, let alone represent full support; "In order for the

style sheets to influence the presentation, the UA must be aware of their 
existence."  Perhaps paying due attention to fundamentals would have
resulted 
in a better product.  To pass the "acid test" the browser has to have the 
stylesheet, doesn't it? 


Jesse
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 10:23:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:12 GMT