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

Re: Fwd: [cssom-view] small update

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:33:31 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660804211133p240727bfk8fc5a8d5601a9a8e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>

 On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:54:31 +0200, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > bump.
> >
>
>  I believe I already explained why I disagree with you on the matters you
> keep re-raising on this mailing list. I think it is useful to standardize on
> what browsers need to implement and the only way to get there is by having a
> definition that disagrees with current implementations.

You've made a spec that disagrees with 3/4 implementations. It sounds
like you're saying you did it on purpose. Am I right? Please confirm
that this was deliberate and intentional.

Opera doesn't disagree with the spec. You said yourself that you
changed Opera's implementation then the spec and the spec came first.
You actually followed up with saying that neither Opera's impl, nor
CSSOM came first:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Apr/0259.html


> If implementations
> are not able to change their implementations I'm sure we'll get feedback to
> that effect in due course. During Last Call or Candidate Recommendation
> stage for instance as we'll need two fully interoperable implementations to
> proceed to W3C Recommendation stage.
> So far there's been no such feedback
> from implementors and so far there's been no proposal for a better algorithm
> that could be placed in the specification so I think we're fine.
>
>

That is not true.

I proposed an adjustment to the algorithm. In was in the large portion
of the email that you first ignored, then snipped (after I bumped it).

It is rude and arrogant to snip the entire message, ignore mails, and
refuse to read what I wrote. You do this.

The argument presented (and snipped) was to use the nearest positioned
ancestor for the offsetParent. It is more consistent with every
browser (except Opera). Even in quirks mode. The algorithm was backed
by an example. Here it is again:

<body style='position:relative' onload="alert(a.offsetParent == document.body)">
<div id=a style='position:relative'>a</div>
</body>

The intuitive outcome of the display would be an alert with the value 'true'.
However, CSSOM would make it so that the outcome would 'false' in the alert.

It would therefore make more sense, as I pointed out in my last
message (and many prior), to use BODY as the offsetParent.

"...
So if BODY has position: relative, it can be an offsetParent, yet
CSSOM and Opera says no, BODY cannot be an offsetParent.

So, it would seem to make more sense to specify that BODY can be an
offsetParent, if it has position: relative, or, more specificially,
that the nearest positioned ancestor is the offsetParent, and, if none
found, [something_else], is used, where something _else, ideally,
would match IE in standards mode, and be HTML...."

I also mentioned in my last message that my hands had become tired
from re-typing examples and explaining the same thing over and over
again, but you intentionally ignored that and now I'm typing again. So
when I say you're rude and arrogant, it's not an "ad hominem" attack;
it's really a justifiable observation. You've demonstrated that you
refuse to think or read what I wrote and continue on in your own
mindset.

I've also explained that we need a test suite for these properties and
why. A test suite provides instant knowledge to everyone. Page
authors, implementors, and even the spec writer. The test suite, and I
don't mean one of those "Acid Tests", would be formally composed of a
test case for each property or set of properties, such as offset*
would seem to eliminate the need for a spec.

Taking the test approach, there wouldn't be any need for web
developers to scavenge political discussions on w3c lists for
artifacts of browser incompatibilities that didn't make it into the
spec. We (anyone and everyone) could all just load the test in the
browser and see what's green or red in [browser_x]. The test doesn't
lie; it would always be up to date with whatever browser it's running
in.

I think Anne's answer to that one was "Go start a google code project."

Garrett

>
>
>  --
>  Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 18:34:10 GMT

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