Re: [cssom-view] small update

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:26:33 +0200, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>  
wrote:
> Where does it mention particular user agents that went with there own  
> standard for far to many years, thus break interoperability.

We're not here to judge what browsers did, we try to make the best of the  
situation. (Though if three out of four relevant browsers do the same  
thing it's an easy choice.)


> I would like to know which is heritage and which is a true compatible  
> standard. This is obvious in the lesson with the CSS box model where for  
> many years IE went it's own way.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/box.html
>
> It helpful for authors to know that the IE box model is heritage and  
> what is seen in the specs now is compatible with existing  
> implementations. IE5 is long gone so authors have know need to  
> understand the old IE box model but we may be stuck with IE7 for quite a  
> few years to come with it own particular scripting standard. Such  
> heritage information could appear 'non-normative' an easy to remove in  
> the future.
>
> We are in the present now but do we have to have this not breaking  
> existing content haunting us for eternity. Some things must break (past  
> errors) to move forward. This principle doesn't just lay with CSS or  
> scripting (or other web languages) but in all area of life and society.
>
> The design principles (2.1. Support Existing Content) have a past and a  
> present. I would rather this be more on the side of the present and the  
> future.

This seems more relevant for author tutorials than a specification. A  
specification defines how something should be implemented, it is not  
documentation on how something is implemented in various implementations.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 13:35:11 UTC