- 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