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

Re: [cssom-view] small update

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:26:33 +1000
Message-ID: <480C9609.5020806@css-class.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com>, 'Www-style' <www-style@w3.org>

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:19:48 +0200, Mike Wilson <mikewse@hotmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>> The main goal is achieving Web compatibility. When it became
>>> clear that having no differences between quirks mode and
>>> standards mode became feasible that became a secondary goal.
>> Could you describe your definition of Web compatibility a bit
>> further?
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#support-existing-content

Not knowing whom Mike has replied to make it hard to follow this thread. 
I will out-line one point from the part on design principle.

"Does the dependent content currently work as intended in multiple 
popular user agents, rather than explicitly targeting only one 
particular user agent, or only very old or otherwise unpopular ones?"

Where does it mention particular user agents that went with there own 
standard for far to many years, thus break interoperability.

>>> Do you think this section
>>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#background
>>> is clear enough on that or do you want me to add a sentence saying
>>> explicitly that it doesn't match current implementations?
>> If chosing this path I would like to see comments in each
>> relevant section, mentioning heritage and compatibility, f ex:
> Why?

I would like to know which is heritage and which is a true compatible 
standard. This is obvious in the lesson with the CSS box model where for 
many years IE went it's own way.


It helpful for authors to know that the IE box model is heritage and 
what is seen in the specs now is compatible with existing 
implementations. IE5 is long gone so authors have know need to 
understand the old IE box model but we may be stuck with IE7 for quite a 
few years to come with it own particular scripting standard. Such 
heritage information could appear 'non-normative' an easy to remove in 
the future.

We are in the present now but do we have to have this not breaking 
existing content haunting us for eternity. Some things must break (past 
errors) to move forward. This principle doesn't just lay with CSS or 
scripting (or other web languages) but in all area of life and society.

The design principles (2.1. Support Existing Content) have a past and a 
present. I would rather this be more on the side of the present and the 


Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 13:42:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:35 UTC