- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 21:47:03 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11360
Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WORKSFORME |
--- Comment #4 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 2010-11-20 21:47:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Indeed, there is no special value for limited-quirks mode. This is intentional:
> there is only one difference between limited- and no-quirks mode, which is the
> handling of table cells that only contain images. (In particular, whether room
> is left for descenders, the bottom-most part of letters such as "g" or "j".)
>
> All of this is only specified because sites rely on it. Trying to read any more
> into it is probably a waste of time. (Including the strings returned by the
> attribute; they should be treated as opaque identifiers, rather than words with
> any meaning.)
I am not satisfied with this response. You are basically saying "it doesn't
matter". That is no kind of resolution, so it DOES NOT WORK FOR ME.
If there is a difference in behavior between limited-quirks and no-quirks
modes, then the corresponding values of compatMode MUST be distinct, regardless
of whether the value is considered an opaque identifier or not. Otherwise,
there is no way to implement 8.4 step 2 without introducing a hidden variable
that is distinct from compatMode.
If you aren't willing to introduce a new value, then you need to provide a
comment in the text indicating the behavior you mention above and also pointing
to alternative mechanisms, e.g.,. having the content evaluate
document.docType.publicId directly. If the specification intentionally requires
a hidden variable different from compatMode, then that should be indicated
somewhere as well in the spec.
A reference also needs to be added from 3.1.3 to 8.2.5.4.
Regards,
Glenn
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 20 November 2010 21:47:05 UTC