- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 07:35:36 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
--- Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: > Matthew Brealey wrote: > > >> It is true that unit-less values for left and top are not valid CSS, > but > >> that > >> means the content/webpage is not compliant - not the browser. > > > > No. It means that the browsers are not compliant because the pages > > wouldn't exist if the browsers didn't tolerate them. > > Non-compliance by indirection? I understand the blame you are laying at > the > feet of the browsers, but I'm not sure it is reasonable to call it > non-compliance. (Exception: CSS-1 section 7.1) If there is an exception, it's incompliant - you can't say 'It's compliant with the exception of X.'. Either it is compliant or it isn't. If there is an exception, it is not compliant. > Which came first? Liberally written pages or liberally accepting user > agents? In this case, the latter clearly. There would be no liberally written pages if they didn't work. There existed very clearly defined error-handling behaviour for CSS, the user agents chose to ignore it. As a result when people write invalid pages, they are not made aware of the fact, so dangerous behaviour is encouraged and future extensions to CSS are damaged even before there inception. > And once the liberally written pages proliferated, There were no liberally written CSS pages prior to liberally written browsers. ===== ---------------------------------------------------------- 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!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 10:35:39 UTC