- From: Robert Brodrecht <whatwg@robertdot.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:20:43 -0600 (CST)
Anne van Kesteren Wrote > IE doesn't have a broken box model in standards mode. I was under the impression you wanted to throw out different rendering modes because they are difficult for implementors. If so, at least for IE (and presumably quirksmode in other browsers, since they tend to mimmic IE's quirks), there would be two box models that aren't reconcilable. > Authors code against implementations, not specifications. Yeah, authors eventually end up doing browser testing, and, in that way, code against an implementation. However, I have to look at the specification to determine what is valid markup. It seems, according to implementations, that HTML, HTML-XHTML, and real XHTML all allow "user invented tags." While they don't validate (validating is coding against a spec), the browsers I test on all rendered the content and applied CSS markup. Except for Safari in real XHTML, the element was added to the DOM and accessible with JavaScript. This seems roughly congruent with HTML specs[2], though I don't know if it is congruent with CSS specs and DOM specs. However, if I code against the implementation, not bothering to code against the specification (e.g. by validation or by looking at the specification), I can make up my own elements and have them render on the page. Since validation is a part of the web standards movement, I would say that authors worth their salt will code against both implementations and specifications. [1] http://whatwg.robertdot.org/files/20070314-invented-tags/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#notes-invalid-docs -- Robert <http://robertdot.org>
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 10:20:43 UTC