- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:45:01 +0000
Jim Ley wrote: >On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:59:48 +0000, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > >>J. King wrote: >> >> >>>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:04:56 +0000, Jim Ley <jim.ley at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>how do you expect the feature to be tested in implementations then? >>>> >>>> >>That's a bit like saying "how do you expect to test that a UA treats an >><em> element as emphasized"? It can't be done - all that you can check >>is that the UA behaves in a manner consistent with the metadata being >>provided >> >> > >You're misunderstanding what tested in implementations means in the >context I was using it, unless the feature is proven to work, by >having it existing and doing something in a user agent, it shouldn't >be in the spec, this is why W3c specs now have the 2 implementations >of each feature rule. > So what does that mean in the context of an element like <var>? There's no defined way in which such an element has to behave; it provides only semantics. Was it really necessary that implementations do something (anything) with such elements just so HTML 4 could be ratified? This case is much closer to that than a case like display:inline-block in CSS where there is a clearly defined behavior that could be compared between different implementations.
Received on Monday, 13 December 2004 04:45:01 UTC