Re: [whatwg] Default (informal) Style Sheet

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:59:50 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <> wrote:
>>> Who are we (as spec definers) to decide that x is the only correct
>>> behaviour or presentation? And why should we want to stifle innovation
>>> by requiring some specific presentation?
>> Defining default rendering for certain constructs such as that the  
>> <body> element has a default margin of 8px (iirc) is important for
>> interoperability reasons
> I'm not sure I understand. Exactly what interoperability are you  
> referring to here? Surely we're not trying to ensure that a Web page
> is presented the same in every browsing environment? What would be the
> use of that?

That's what people expect from us (browser vendors). So yes, that's what  
we're trying to ensure.

>> and for new UAs trying to enter the market (saves
>> them reverse engineering other UAs).
> Hm... That might indeed be a problem looking for a solution. But I'm not  
> at all convinced that requiring body {margin:8px} is the proper  
> solution. Even if it were the ony possible solution, I'm not convinced  
> the benefits outweigh the objections I raised.

Well, I told you, having some experience in user agent quality assurance,  
that this is important. Sites rely on the default margin <form> elements  
have. The default style of <hr>, <p>, <table>, et cetera.

>> It is very important that UAs falling within the same conformance class
>> agree on these basic principles so authoring against those UAs becomes
>> more predictable
> As I asked before: how does an author provided 'CSS zapper' not do that?  
> How in fact does requiring default presentations remove the need for  
> authors to provide 'CSS zappers'?

Not all authors will use a 'CSS zapper' (whatever it is). They will still  
expect the same results across user agents.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 07:54:14 UTC