- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:00:21 +1000
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- CC: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> > wrote: > >> May I disagree ? It is the duty of an implementor to >> concern him/herself with everything that an author >> might do <stress>that is consistent with the specification</>. >> > > One of the first lessons of browser implementation is that authors cannot be > trusted. Roc, which authors are you referring to. 1. Code valid CSS and HTML. 2. Code invalid CSS and valid and HTML. 3. Code valid CSS and invalid HTML. 4. Code invalid CSS and HTML. 5. Code invalid and propriety HTML. You want to cater for the full spectrum, even those authors that ignorantly mangle there code into knots. > Therefore it is the duty of the implementor to concern him/herself > with everything that an author might do, "consistent with the specification" > or not. (And it is the duty of the spec author to ensure that specifications > prescribe behaviour for everything an author might do, so that question does > not arise.) > > Rob So you are saying that the spec authors duty is to have CSS rendering defined. This is a double edge sword where the author coding by best practices are penalized. Alan
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 13:01:31 UTC