W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [cssom-view] small update

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:32:17 +0200
To: "Mike Wilson" <mikewse@hotmail.com>, "'Www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t9cn33wf64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:44:36 +0100, Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>  
wrote:
> Before diving into the previous subjects I'd like to discuss how to
> standardize features that are invented by one vendor and later copied
> by the other vendors, as this seems to be a central question here.

Ok.


> "Post" standardization of a feature should only change things if
> something was obviously broken in the original design, and can easily
> be interpreted to be not in the authors' intent.

Actually, post standardization should also take into account deployed  
content and quirks mode versus standards mode differences. It should also  
take into account other implementations of the feature, and how they have  
dealt with quirks / standards mode differences, etc.


> If, apart from this kind of corrections, other vendors choose to make
> incompatible changes when copying the feature, then this should render
> bug reports in their respective bug handling systems, and not be input
> for standardization.

I think that depends. Removing differences between quirks and standards  
mode is something I'd consider a feature.


> I'm a bit suprised to hear compatibility with quirks mode being
> presented as a major argument in a standards discussion :-). HTML5
> defines how to detect quirks mode, which is fine, but if any serious
> attempt is to be made to be compatible with quirks mode regarding
> element positions (as is the subject of offset* props) then you also
> need to standardize IE's old broken box model, block-displayed IMG:s,
> ignoring padding for IMG:s etc.

Well, I'm hoping IE will fix that in due course.


> Being a W3C specification I think these properties should be described
> for standards mode and that other browser vendors should comply to
> this behaviour. Then adding handling for quirks mode is a marketing
> decision to be taken by each browser vendor, and should be handled
> outside of W3C as long as other crucial parts of quirks mode is not
> standardized.

Quirks mode is not a marketing decision.


> Alternatively, if these properties are to be regarded as a heritage
> from the old dark ages of quirks mode, then the described (quirks)
> behaviour can be kept but only when the browser enters quirks mode
> (you should reference this in the spec). In standards mode the props
> should then be made unavailable.

I'd like them to be identical and it seems that this is feasible so I  
think we should strive for that. This gives less complexity for authors in  
the long haul.


> [...]

To be clear, Microsoft is on the CSS WG and I'm sure they'll give feedback  
as they think is appropriate. The CSS WG discussed this draft during the  
face-to-face and no technical issues have been raised so far by CSS WG  
members as can be seen in the minutes.

I have made clarifications to the draft to be clear what the background of  
various features defined by the specification is. I hope that helps.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 15:32:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:05 GMT