Re: HTML has no definition / automated test suite

> No, as HTML does not specify look/presentation/default browser rendering.

Actually that notion is a tremendous pain. It just doesn't work. OF COURSE
you want your page to be displayed in some way. Pretty much all modern
websites rely on that. There is a heap of implicit assumptions about how
HTML should be rendered. It's pretty much a black art.

In the end, it turns out that the only real acceptable variation between
browsers is different fonts and maybe spacing. But even there it breaks
down.

It's just weird to "intend" a page some way and then having a browser - any
browser - render it some other way. That's not really what you want, at
least not in most cases.

It's also a poor process - there is no feedback. User opens your page with
Weird Browser X, it displays wrongly, user is confused, but might not even
notice why.

I reiterate: It's not a good process. Not clear, not very useful.

Power-wise, the situation leads to an oligopoly of a few (very few)
"established" browsers - because those are what you test your page against
in practice.

So, congratulations, HTML definers, you have locked out independent browser
makers. THAT is your contribution ^^

Cheers,
Stefan

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 01/11/2014 14:05, Stefan Reich wrote:
>
>> A proper definition of HTML would include collections of sample HTML
>> source plus IMAGES of how they look rendered.
>>
>
> No, as HTML does not specify look/presentation/default browser rendering.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>