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

Re: [cssom-view] small update

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:45:27 +0200
To: "Garrett Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t9lel1wx64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:15:24 +0200, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>  
wrote:
> I believe you may have missed some evidence, Boris. OffsetTop and
> offsetParent have been redefined in ways that are opera-compatible and
> only Opera compatible. One of those ways was mentioned over a year ago
> by Mike Wilson twice, was ignored both times, and was just recently
> corrected after being brought up again.

This is evidence for what? That I intentionally ignored an e-mail for a  
year only to address the point now making Opera incompatible with the  
specification in the process? It would be nice if you stopped the ad  
hominem attacks.


> Another way, is that offsetTop has been defined in a way that works
> differently when the offsetParent should be BODY, but in fact, the
> spec defines it in a way that is only compatible with Opera. The
> incompatibility affects every other browser. This has been pointed out
> very clearly on the list. I attached a file, too. There should, at the
> very least, be mention of these incompatibilities in the
> specification.

Actually, all browsers do it differently. At Opera we tried to figure out  
what the best way would be to be compatible with Firefox, Safari, and  
Internet Explorer in both quirks and standards mode and we came up with  
these definitions for the various attributes as compromise. We did this  
because we were breaking a few important sites that relied on these  
attributes working different from how we initially implemented them. So  
together with collegues I drafted the initial text and we fixed our  
implementation to match it.

We still have open offset* bugs, but no longer any that wouldn't be fixed  
by implementing the specification properly.


> [...]
>
> I do now know which came Opera's implementation of the change
> introduced by CSSOM Views, or the change introduced by CSSOM Views
> where BODY can't be an offsetParent. Anne, can you please tell us
> which one came first? Was it Opera's bug that made it into the spec,
> or is is a new feature that Opera was early to adopt?

It was neither, as explained above.


I try very hard to not have a bias towards Opera, for what it's worth. If  
there's a better algorithm for offset* available that meets the  
constraints (Web compatibility and the least amount of differences between  
the three rendering modes) I'd be happy to adopt it.


As for better APIs. Please e-mail the list your suggestions. I'd like to  
not add new features to the current version, but for the next version we  
can definitely do that.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 08:45:11 GMT

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