W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [css3] [css21] browser specific CSS

From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:32:28 -0700
Message-ID: <20762130590b2e13c5b1f6d03b1022c7.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "Brian Manthos" <brianman@microsoft.com>, "Glenn Linderman" <v+html@g.nevcal.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "Alan Gresley" <alan@css-class.com>

Le Ven 1 avril 2011 2:04, Brian Manthos a écrit :
> Alan hits on a good point here.  IMO, one of the weakest points in the
> interoperability story right now is the lack of tests.

Hello all,

There is right now 9418 testcases in the latest version of CSS 2.1 test
suite [RC6]. I would not say that the weakest point of CSS 2.1 test suite
is the lack of tests.

> If one or more browsers appear to be wrong, make a test case that captures
> the specific issue succinctly and submit it for consideration to the test
> suite.

Web authors' contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite

Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite

> If it gets accepted, that re-enforces the case as a correct interpretation
> of the specification and puts pressure on vendors aiming for compliance to
> fix the issue.

This simple thing is not mentioned anywhere in Glenn Linderman's initial
post. Glenn states things about browsers - without substantiating them,
nothing solid, concrete whatsoever - as if browsers are not improved, as
if new versions are not released and as if people do not upgrade. It just
is not so. Microsoft has been now for the past 4 years focusing on spec
conformance (eg CSS 2.1) like never before; Mozilla, Opera, Apple (since
Safari), Google and KDE have always been focusing on spec conformance.
And today there are clearly and undisputably more people using IE8+ than
people using IE6 and IE7 combined.

> If it gets rejected, you'll learn something in the "why".
> -Brian

To Glenn,

Each and all of your webpages from your website
uses a doctype declaration which triggers backward-compatible "quirks"
rendering mode. All of them.

backward-compatible "quirks" rendering mode is by definition a bugward
mode of IE5 rendering engine. backward-compatible "quirks" rendering mode
has nothing *_ absolutely nothing_* to do with complying with CSS
conformance rules.

There is no authoritative specification of what happens in Quirks Mode.
After all, the mode is, by essence, an inten­tional violation of CSS and
HTML specifications.
What happens in Quirks Mode?

Your website stylesheet uses unitless values for its CSS rules: that
includes width and height:


And, here, I'm not even referring to other blatant problems with your
stylesheet: over-declaring CSS declarations, over-defining, redefining CSS
declarations, over-constraining CSS declarations. There is such a thing as
over-CSS-coding, bloated CSS code and over-constraining CSS code (width:

Even use of <font>, undisputable misuse and overuse of <br>, etc.. can be
found on your site.

Your initial post had http://nevcal.com/cssrequest.js but it was 404 not
found back then and still today.

According to your stylesheet
http://nevcal.com/style.css (see lines 80 and 375), IE6 is a browser worth

Right now, according to Microsoft
, about 3% of web browser users in North America are still using IE6...

Some declarations in your stylesheet are not supposed to apply to begin
with. That's given by the spec.

> While I would be delighted if all browsers actually did implement all
CSS > in the same standard-conforming way, omissions, bugs, and
extensions all
> exist, and have
> for many years now, and likely will continue to exist.

We don't know what "all CSS" means actually in your writing. Is it CSS 3
modules still in working draft? Is it CSS 2.1? Does it include CSS 4
selectors too?

A wide majority (over 80%) of all browsers in use today on the web pass
the acid2 test.
All of tested graphical browsers on the CSS 2.1 test suite achieved a
score of over 85% in october 2010. Today, their score is undisputably
higher than 6 months ago.

Your stylesheet has more lines of code (398 lines) than the HTML documents
that are supposed to be styled by it. Out of this, well over 150 class
declarations! Some people refer this as classitis.

Many (well over 25) length values in your stylesheet have fractional
values or can lead to fractional used values:
e.g. width: 10%;, margin-left: .1em;
and there will be rounding issues affecting browsers differently because
of this.

A lot of what you do in your nav.js is also debattable. E.g.

      objHTML = document.createElement('p');
      objHTML.setAttribute('name', 'mylogdata');
      objHTML.setAttribute('id', 'mylogdata');

These 3 lines above are questionable.

You seem to assume that
is a trustworthy piece of info on which your function lib_bwcheck() can
rely on, if javascript support is enabled.

Gérard Talbot
CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011

Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite

Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 23:33:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC