On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Arjun Ray wrote: > > > > You're forgetting the conformance requirements. > XHTML (1 Strict) says *nothing* about rendering. As Eliot Kimber noted, there seems to be more than one meaning attached to this word. > The styling is done using some appropriate transformation from a > DOM to a rendering tree (e.g. CSS or, god forbid, XSL:FOs). The styling of what? How? Would you care to explain how item 4 in the user agent conformance requirements should be understood? (Note that the requirement does *not* say anything about a document being "invalid" formal or otherwise.) > In a non-validating UA, this means you can pass well-formed junk > to the UA and it will render as per the CSS rules. What rules? What if there aren't any rules? What are the "rules" for text content found in elements *defined* to have element content only? > The rendering rules are well defined (by the styling language). > The processing rules are well defined (if it is invalid, then > semantics are void). You did examine the two examples I gave? (a <foo> child of <head> and a <foo> child of <ul>) > What more do you want? I don't want anything. I'm just aware that non-geeks are likely to expect, and therefore what willing vendors will eventually provide. ArjunReceived on Monday, 25 June 2001 01:57:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:38:45 GMT