RE: Pixels 'n points (CSS1 browser test)
I am, I confess, a bit confused by your post. How exactly is Microsoft
"choking" in "applying a simple, clear standard for document
presentation"? I'll grant you, our CSS implementation does have bugs -
show me any current commercial software over 5000 lines that doesn't -
but I believe they are growing fewer and further between every day I
show up to work, and I also believe we adhere to the vast majority of
the specification, both in intent and in letter. There are some missing
bits, but not too many - and our release notes will detail exactly what
is missing and what is implemented, and what shortcomings are present in
our implementation. Our goal is, and has been for all of the IE cycle,
to implement the CSS1 specification as precisely as possible. If you
have specific problems with our implementation, please report them - all
bug reports go into our bug database, and get tracked and resolved. If
there are specific features in the specification that you feel we're not
paying attention to, let us know - the more requests we hear for a
specific feature, the more it moves up in priority for us. If you'd
like more features in the specification, obviously, discuss them on this
list or send them to the W3C.
If you're talking about IE3, forget it. IE3 was a proof-of-concept,
drive-stylesheets-acceptance implementation. The CSS1 specification
wasn't finalized until almost six months after the final release of IE3.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephanos Piperoglou [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 1997 5:34 AM
> To: Douglas Rand
> Cc: EMeyer; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Pixels 'n points (CSS1 browser test)
> On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Douglas Rand wrote:
> > It really isn't that difficult, I do it in our browser. The code
> > builds the rendering structure checks for displayFLOAT for inline or
> > block elements (my internal value for the property) and sticks the
> > content in a floater container. It's relatively simple and few
> lines of
> > code, et voila, I can put a paragraph off to the left (and I did
> > my public demo at SGI's developer's forum). Every capable browser
> > already does such things for IMG and TABLE replaced elements.
> I really don't get it. NS and MS have the programmers to break down a
> (usually defective) document into a concise object tree, interpret
> of code in several different languages, have elements perform triple
> sommersaults and morris dance all over your screen, yet when it comes
> applying a simple, clear standard for document presentation, that
> makes oh
> so much sense to any programmer reading it, that practically tells you
> code you need to write in itself, they choke. (next thing you know the
> will be publishing C source with their specs - Whoops! They are!
> that's what
> libwww is!). And as if that wasn't enough, the release notes for
> Communicator 4.0 beta had several pages noting with concise detail, as
> *BUGS* in the beta, all the deviations of the implementation from the
> spec. I was happy. At least the developers knew what they had to fix.
> out comes the release version, this huge list has vanished into
> oblivion and
> it seems that Netscape is content with supporting only a small handful
> what itself voted as a W3C Recomendation. It boggles the mind.
> And the Linux release has been shelved. No bother. I love Amaya.
> Stephanos "Pippis" Piperoglou - http://users.hol.gr/~spip/index.html
> "Life's not fair, but the root password helps" - Simon the BOFH