W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2004

Re: [CSS21] Test Suite

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:43:41 +0200
Message-ID: <1277165768.20040723204341@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Friday, July 23, 2004, 7:02:04 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>
>> Do they have actual documentation?

IH> Yes, as cited in this thread.

(In response to my query, if you look at the actual mails)

>>> You don't have to cope with lots of rendering modes. Just trigger
>>> standards more. To do that, just make sure the first thing in the
>>> document is an HTML4 Strict DOCTYPE.
>>
>> Even if you don't conform to it. Its a flag, not a DOCTYPE. Apparently.

IH> No, if you don't conform to it, you don't use it.

I was reading some advice that if new elements and attributes were added
to HTML 4, the old DOCTYPE should be used rather than one that actually
describes them, to preserve this standards/quirks switching.

I will see if I can find it again.

IH>  Please don't confuse an
IH> already misunderstood issue with incorrect, sarcastic, or flipant
IH> statements, Chris. As the documentation mentioned above explains,

(Documentation that was posted in response to my question asking for it.
Try not to re-order time to back up your arguments).

IH> you can always use a correct valid DOCTYPE and trigger correct
IH> rendering, whichever variant of HTML you are trying to use.

Yeah, I can't think who would add new elements to HTML 4 anyway, its a
moot point I suppose.


>> This becomes more of a problem when the XHTML DOCTYPES are used as
>> flags - using a different one, which is perfectly legal, might or
>> might not trigger quirks mode.

IH> This is also nonsense. Any XHTML content (sent using an XHTML MIME type)
IH> will be treated in standards mode, regardless of DOCTYPE.

Again, referring to info sent in response to my query cannot be used to
show that the original query wasn't necessary. Lets see what you are
suggesting - rather than posting my email, I should have read the
answers to it ... hmm... ???


IH> The quirks mode issue is only relevant for the "Tag Soup" MIME type.

>> Is there a list of these triggers? Per browser/os/version, obviously,
>> I don't imagine a single trigger works the same in all of them.

IH> Yes, as cited in this thread.


IH> I assume, from your tone,

My *tone* is asking for documentation. Sorry if you find the idea of
requesting documentation threatening in some way. I find your tone
pretty strident, considering I asked for docs on something and other
people provided it, all in a calm and helpful manner.

IH> that you are trying to imply that DOCTYPE- triggered rendering mode
IH> switching was a bad idea. I assure you that if it hadn't been used,
IH> browsers would be much less compliant. There are billions of
IH> documents out there, and most rely in pretty fundamental ways on
IH> non-compliant renderings.

(looks around for where I said that .. fails to find it). I said it was
poorly specified. I also said that relying on it for CSS testing was a
bad idea and that there should be separate HTML4, XHTML and XML tests.
Since you agree with that too I am not sure what point you are trying to
make. *checks title of thread* yes, we are talking about the CSS 2.1
test suite, not some "billions of documents out there".

IH> Insulting the work of everyone involved in improving standards
IH> compliance in HTML UAs despite the existance of significant legacy
IH> content that is not compatible with these standards by implying that
IH> one of their most important solutions is in some way technically
IH> poor is disingenuous, and suggests little understanding of the state
IH> of the Web.

Ian, the ad hominem attack is both unhelpful and unwarranted. You are
adding two and two together and getting 487. Chill a little and respond
to what was actually written, not what you imagine. Or don't bother,
because others have already helpfully responded already.

I asked for documentation. I might well go on to look for evidence of
conformance and do a few tests.

Stop being so prickly. Asking for docs, doing a few tests is something
you do *all the time*.

If you want to talk about 'insulting the work of those involved in
improving standards compliance' then I refer you to your own blog
entries which regularly insult those in standards work.

Chill, dude. Take a break occasionally. Remember to breathe.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 14:43:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:31 GMT