- From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 19:06:31 +0100 (BST)
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- cc: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, dbaron@dbaron.org, public-html@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 18:06:57 UTC
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Also sprach T.V Raman: > > > Why aren't we defining Javascript the same way as what you > > describe --i.e. make every failing program "somehow work". > > Why aren't we even defining CSS that way i.e. "somehow make every > > CSS rule parse and mean something." > > Why is HTML special? > > CSS was designed with error recovery built into the syntax. If an > unknown property or unit is used, the CSS specification describes how > to handle it. I think that we may differ on how effective CSS's error handling really is. It's great that there is a well defined way to resume parsing after finding something that isn't understood or which violates the grammar in someway, but CSS hasn't helped developers who are struggling to deal with browsers that vary considerably in their support for CSS. You have to learn all kinds of subtle rules of thumb which is a great shame for something that should be really simple. In fact, one could say that the problems with CSS and scripting dwarf any interoperability problems with HTML itself. However, the idea of converging on the parsing algorithm for HTML is certainly attractive. Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 18:06:57 UTC