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

Re: [CSS21] Why are browser default style values different from Appendix D

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 21:24:00 +1000
Message-ID: <48219150.109@css-class.com>
To: Saloni Mira Rai <salonir@microsoft.com>
CC: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>, "Ph. Wittenbergh" <jk7r-obt@asahi-net.or.jp>, CSS <www-style@w3.org>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>

Saloni Mira Rai wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Arron did modify the test to put the UL within a "non hasLayout" element, and the value was still 0 for margin-top and margin-bottom.
> Can you send the test where you are seeing the 19px?


http://css-class.com/test/css/defaults/unordered-list-haslayout.htm


> Also, to reiterate, IE7 values are not and should not be the focus here. In each of the cases you say hasLayout interferes with the test, all other browsers are consistent. This suggests that IE7 data for these elements would not affect the end decision.
> (Also, other browsers do not have "hasLayout". So far we haven't seen problems with other browser data so I am going to continue assuming that it is all correct and do not require debate)


I agree with you. I will prepare my table again with what I see is the 
errors for IE7 (default vertical margins) and put it online. I will also 
add a column for IE8. The focus should be 'not' be focused on IE7 
behavior as you have said but we must get it straight that your tables 
shows some wrong values for IE7.

Anyway a table showing both IE7 and IE8 will be good for authors. This 
doesn't necessary have to be in the spec. My site will do.


> Lets instead look at the elements for which real world implementations are different from the spec. As Elika said on this list before, if there is consensus between majority of the implementations, then we have good enough reason to drive these edits back into the spec.
> I would request that everyone examine the table and discuss which values make sense, and which need to be modified.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Saloni


I agree again. I will work on my updated table. :-)


Regards, Alan
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 11:24:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:06 GMT