- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:44:11 -0600
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
>>Especially when the recommendations keep mutating
>
> You say this as if the working group changes things on a whim.
No, I just say this as a fact. Quite a few non-compliance issues in
modern browsers are the result of having been compliant at some point
and then the specification changing. This includes some IE/Windows
"bugs", as Tantek pointed out, as well as several Mozilla issues. My
post was in response to a particularly nasty post that was claiming that
UA authors are purposefully shipping software with buggy implementations
of properties instead of just not parsing the properties they know they
have bugs in. The point is that in some cases when they implemented
that property they did NOT in fact have a bug in it.
I realize that most of the changes that were made were in fact resolving
serious consistency issues and that there is even good reasoning behind
the "out of touch with reality" changes, but that doesn't change the
fact that if "reality" and a particular UA don't agree that UA suddenly
becomes non-compliant.
> What exactly is it you think "keeps" mutating? What features have you
> implemented in a fully spec-compliant way before seeing the group make it
> non-compliant, requiring the old implementation to be scrapped?
Me personally? None, I think. I've had to do or witnessed some of the
scrapping, though. Some things that come to mind immediately are:
1) the status of '_' in identifiers (no scrapping here, really, it was
not a huge change).
2) the parsing of background-position (this _did_ have to be pretty much
scrapped, since the hard part was the error-checking logic).
3) the cascade level at which presentational hints live in XML (making
all sorts of UAs non-compliant at a go).
4) Handling of "inherit" (this totally changed).
5) The treatment of inset and outset in the collapsed border model (this
is not noted in the http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html document,
by the way; it probably should be).
There were a few more but I can't recall them right now.
-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 09:46:14 UTC