Re: Fwd: [cssom-view] small update

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:00:55 +0100, Garrett Smith <>  
> Even a basic, simple test would fail what CSSOM:

What do you mean?

> [...]
> This is testing the AVK CSSOM Spec. I do not agree with the expected
> result which (coincidentally) is only attained in Opera.

Given the other constraints I think this result makes the most sense, but  
if I'm open to suggestions on how to improve various algorithms.

> This is not an edge case at all.There are also more complex, yet
> benign examples which will fail.

Please tell!

> But since I (and the other 3 browsers) do not agree on the expected
> result, it seems only fair to ask the question:"What should the
> expected result be?"

See above.

> To answer this question, I think a test is the best approach. I do not
> think this is unreasonable. Nor do I find it to be inappropriate.
> Putting up little tests on each thread is not exactly the way to
> maintain a test suite.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

> Spec'ing existing features is not the same thing as designing
> futuristic HTML 5 features. If you make stuff up, it causes problems.

Most of HTML 5 is exactly in the same ballpark, so it's unclear to me what  
point you're trying to make here.

> There's still an unanwsered email in the archives, and plenty of  
> questions.

If you mean I was  
hoping you would finish it first.

> You're calling me hostile, huh?


> Things like putting: "..." after I asked you if you're waiting for me
> to get tired replying should be considered what, "harmless"?

It was simply to mark a continuation of the previous sentence I wrote.  
FWIW, you sounded hostile in that e-mail too.

> Some questions I've asked have been snipped, unanswered or answered
> carelessly, and I've had to repeat the questions, which has led away
> from the original point.

It's still not exactly clear to me what your problem is, apart from that  
you found some cases that you think should work differently from the  
specification. It's also not clear to me what your desired solution is and  
why that would work better than what is currently in the specification.

> Now, regardless of my own opinion on your behavior, there are several
> problems with the spec. Condemning you as harmless would do nothing to
> improve the spec, would it?

I'm not sure what this means.

> There's still an unanwsered email back in the archives, if I'm not  
> mistaken.

See above.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Thursday, 6 March 2008 22:47:24 UTC