- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:31:35 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <bert@w3.org>
- cc: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@hotmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
(Bert - note the comments re: the errata at the bottom of this mail)
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>
>> IE6/Windows has full CSS Level 1 compliance, just as IE5/Mac did when
>> it shipped over a year ago,
>
> As of build 2479 it doesn't support e.g.
>
> option { text-align: right }
In all fairness, there is nothing in CSS1 (CSS2) that says that CSS
applies to form controls. That any style applies to form controls is a
matter of debate, and at best a convention.
The CSS3 UI module(s) will address this in depth.
> Mozilla 2001071004 does, but only in the pulldown menu, the current
> selection is still left-aligned,
Whether those two locations are the same element is even more open to
debate. Nowhere else in CSS can a single box appear in two places at once.
> Both don't support borders for the tr element, while CSS Level 1 says,
> it applies to all elements
Again, in all fairness, if a UA is to support CSS1, then it is the subset
of CSS1 that is in CSS2 that should be implemented. There are some other
cases where CSS1 and CSS2 are incompatible, none of which matter in
practice. For example, "a.b.b" is an invalid CSS1 selector but is valid
in CSS2 and according to the Selectors last call draft.
Thus, tables should be considered out of scope of CSS1.
> IE6 doesn't normalize white-space in font-family names, e.g.
>
> p { font-family: Arial Unicode MS }
>
> works, while
>
> p { font-family: Arial Unicode MS }
>
> or
>
> p { font-family: Arial
> Unicode MS }
>
> doesn't.
This is valid bug however. (Very basic bug, too, I'm sure Microsoft's CSS
QA engineer(s) know all about it.)
> In general, I'd happily report each bug I find, but as for Mozilla my
> bugs aren't fixed
That's a little unfair -- of the three bugs you have filed, two were
duplicates of the same bug (which was invalid) and one is an HTTP bug
which was misunderstood at first and was only recently clarified.
> [1] pre _and_ post current errata, since the errata didn't change
> section 4.1.3, see my try to discuss this and the report on 25th may
> this year on this list; btw.: appendix B must be changed, too; it's
> very obvious, that it wasn't intended to exclude the underscore...
> and yes, I'm somewhat disappointed that my report got ignored.
Oops, thanks for pointing that out. Regarding whether it's a change or an
error, the distinction is simple: changes are informative, corrections to
known errors are normative. The Changes section is merely a placeholder
for proposals so that authors of new UAs know to be careful and not rely
on the relevant sections on the spec to stay the same, whereas the other
sections indicate that the WG is agreed that the change should take effect
immediately.
Bert: Could you add to the errata item that the underscore change also
applies to section 4.1.3 and appendix B? Thanks!
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Invited Expert, CSS Working Group /. `- ' ( `--'
The views expressed in this message are strictly `- , ) - > ) \
personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 01:33:01 UTC