Re: CSS parser recovery

On 12/14/02 4:07 AM, "Ian Hickson" <> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> If you are referring to IE6/Windows, the original example given:
>>  p { color : green ; q{color : blue ; }
>>  samp { color : red ; }
>> renders the paragraph green and the samp red
> Um, no it doesn't. That renders all green (unless you trigger quirks mode,
> but that is out of scope for this discussion).


Yes, I had simply copy-pasted the original example.  After making the
example HTML 4.0 Strict, the paragraph renders all green.  I had not thought
there would be *any* reason to treat this differently in quirks vs. strict

> Anyway, that wasn't the original example. The original example was:
>  p {color: green; /* missing "}" */
>  q {color: blue;}
>  samp {color:red;}
> an XHTML document. Since WinIE doesn't support XHTML,

Actually, the example was invalid XHTML 1.0, and thus treating it as tag
soup HTML was/is perfectly reasonable - as I've seen you argue many times
quite loudly. ;-)

> I've turned it
> into an HTML equivalent document (and slightly changed the text so as to
> not be confusing) without changing the stylesheet, and you can see that
> WinIE6 in fact renders everything green:
> Indeed it passes all the tests too:


Chalk one (or several) up for the IE6/Windows guys.

> Or we could define it as I am proposing, thus backing up three
> implementations, keeping our options open, and keeping the spec
> self-consistent.

Indeed, a single implementation vs. three is quite a different matter.
Though I wonder what Opera does - I'll let Hċkon speak up if he cares to.

We'll fix Tasman to comply with this interpretation - could you suggest the
specific errata for CSS1 & 2 to clarify the interpretation in the specs?



Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 16:31:02 UTC