- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:21:14 -0800 (PST)
- To: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- Tantek Celik wrote: > Well, if it was fully unbuggy then it probably > wouldn't need to be a beta > right ;-) > > Yes, full CSS1 support means we are doing our best > to address all CSS1 bugs > (in addition to other bugs of course), but I'm > certainly not going to make > any claims that the current beta builds are fully > unbuggy. Ian Hickson wrote: > > Its a beta for pete's sake! The idea of betas is to > _find_ the bugs... > > If there were no bugs and it was feature complete, > then it would not be a > beta, it would be a release! I probably should have made myself clearer. Obviously every browser has bugs, and many of them will not be discovered or documented for some time. What I really wanted to know was whether _documented_ bugs have been removed (for example, does <span style="font-family: "A font without an 'a'">a</span> result in an 'a'). ===== ---------------------------------------------------------- From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS)) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 1999 07:21:15 UTC