- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:28:19 +0100
- To: Matthew Lye <mlye@trentu.ca>
- CC: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>, W3C style list <www-style@w3.org>
Matthew Lye wrote: > On 2/8/1998 09:52 PM, Todd Fahrner wrote: > > >I'm aware of several test pages hiding around W3C servers, though none > >comprehensive. I think there's been a political issue in W3C publicizing > >how short of the mark member companies are falling. Todd, I think you know us a little better than that; we frequently report errors in CSS implementation or describe which behaviour is compliant in response to queries on this list and the newsgroup. We also generate a significant percentage of bug reports actually sent to the browser manufacturers (sometimes the public seems to have the impression that sendfing in bug reports will do no good, is someone else's problem, etc). So, particularly for short and well defined test cases like this, do send a bug report to the vendor of each non-compliant implementation and do post a comparative table to the list. > Seriously, it's probably a tough issue for the W3C member organizations, > because even the most innocent ommisions and mistakes can start to look > like subtle leveraging; additionally, I get the sense that the legal > questions involved with compliance claims are very muddy. True. Note however that the CSS1 spec does define what compliance means and thus it can be evaluated. > My bet would be that the W3C staff have enough autonomy to get away with > it. Who would want to be the first to object? ;-) -- Chris
Received on Monday, 9 February 1998 03:28:59 UTC