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

Re: [CSS21] Test Suite

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:30:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407232059530.27766@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>> Do they have actual documentation?
>> Yes, as cited in this thread.
> (In response to my query, if you look at the actual mails)

Yes; I wasn't trying to suggest it was otherwise.

>>> Even if you don't conform to it. Its a flag, not a DOCTYPE.
>>> Apparently.
>> 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.

You'll be glad to hear that that advice is specious.

>> Please don't confuse an already misunderstood issue with incorrect,
>> sarcastic, or flipant 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).

The documentation was already there, and most of it is years old.

>> you can always use a correct valid DOCTYPE and trigger correct
>> 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.

Adding new elements to HTML has nothing to do with the test suite, and
is not an argument for or against DOCTYPE switching, so I don't see the
why you raise this.

>>> 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.
>> This is also nonsense. Any XHTML content (sent using an XHTML MIME
>> type) 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... ???

You could have looked it up. Or experimented. Or asked politely for
documentation instead of making brash assertions ("Even if you don't
conform to it. Its a flag, not a DOCTYPE. Apparently.") that further
confuse this already confused issue.

>> I assume, from your tone,
> My *tone* is asking for documentation. Sorry if you find the idea of
> requesting documentation threatening in some way.

Come on Chris, of your two requests for documentation, the first clearly
implied that you didn't think there was any ("actual" documentation) and
the second was quickly followed by a suggestion that there was no
interoperability in the matter.

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

So you don't think DOCTYPE-triggered mode switching is a bad thing?

> 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.

(looks around for where you said that .. fails to find it).

> 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.

I don't recall ever insulting any Web standards people on my blog, let
alone doing so regularly. Could you point to examples of this? As far as I
can tell, everything that could be conceived of as insulting is actually
factual and written pretty neutrally.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 23 July 2004 17:30:51 UTC

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