- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:14:09 -0700
- To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, dbaron@dbaron.org, public-html@w3.org
On May 1, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Dave Raggett wrote: > 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. CSS implementations do have interoperability problems, but rarely in the area of error handling, as far as I know. In HTML, incompatible error handling is a significant problem. > In fact, one could say that the problems with CSS and scripting > dwarf any interoperability problems with HTML itself. I think you're right on that, and we need to keep working on the CSS spec and CSS implementations to raise the bar there too. > However, the idea of converging on the parsing algorithm for HTML > is certainly attractive. Agreed. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 20:15:35 UTC