W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2003

Re: WD-CSS21-20020802 section 8, "Box model", substantive comments

From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 03:46:24 -0800
To: www-style@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-id: <BA8B238F.124%ewexler@stickdog.com>

Ian Hickson wrote to <www-style@w3.org> on 4 March 2003 in "Re:
WD-CSS21-20020802 section 8, "Box model", substantive comments"

> Given the bugs mentioned above, and the technically correct behaviour
> of ignoring 'border' on <div> elements, which do you think an
> implementor would consider the higher priority?

I don't presume to know.

> (Note: I don't want to get into an argument about whether 'full support'
> means '100% compliant' or not.)

In the context of CSS1, "full support" means to me something better than and
beyond 100% compliance. A compliant implementation may avoid implementaing
the parts of the specification described in the notes marked "CSS1 core". A
"full support" implementation must implement every feature.

>>> This fix requires that XForms implementations not render XForms controls
>>> with native UI, and yet it allows <object> elements to be given non-CSS
>>> borders.
> That isn't acceptable.

I concede this point. It remains acceptable to me, but I understand that it
is unacceptable to many people.

> By that argument, the caveat in the spec is irrelevant, since even
> without it, UA implementors can just say "well, we are not using CSS
> as our styling mechanism on that element".

That would be non-compliant behavior. A compliant implementation applies CSS
to every element. The alternative that I had in mind while writing my
previous message was to avoid CSS altogether.

Etan Wexler: defective, broken, deranged, disordered, unhealthy, imperfect,
incurable, hopeless.
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 06:46:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:06 UTC