- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:34:39 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@osiolki.net>
- Cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Kornel Lesinski wrote: > > Why would they lie? - to get their browsers render 'at least something' > from @required rules. No, they lie because of bugs. It's not really lying, it's completely unintentional. > Make two levels of conformance: > > * Default level would be "appears to work" and could be used in simple > situations where just basic functionality of property is needed. > * Second level would be "good implementation" which should be recognized only > when browser has full and relatively bugfree implementation of feature. To do this, it first has to be established that the implementations are relatively bug free. I can think of many cases in many browsers where a feature was thought to be bug free for _years_ until someone (typically me! :-P) came along and actually tested it. Then suddenly it was found that actually the feature was pretty much unusable in anything but the simplest scenarios. > I think over time browser vendors will learn that lying about > unsupported features breaks sites and authors will find combinations of > rules and selectors that eliminate lying browsers anyway. ...and then we're back to where we are now. So what's the point? I disagree that the benefits introduced outweigh the cost (in author confusion and frustration, in implementation investment, in testing, in specifying what "a good level of conformance" means, etc). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:34:48 UTC