- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:13:36 -0700
- To: Rafal Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu>
- Cc: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu> wrote: > W dniu 23.07.2015 o 22:39, Tab Atkins Jr. pisze: >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Sebastian Zartner >> <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 19 July 2015 at 08:06, Rafal Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu> wrote: >>>> Hello All, > [----------------------] >>>> 2. and since only one of them can be right, the others are wrong ... so >>>> I'd like to notify respective develoers here (google, mozilla, etc; >>>> which I understand frequent this list) of this bug in their >>>> implementations; although I con't actually know which one is wrong. >>> >>> Here's a simplified version of Rafał's example: >>> >>> https://jsfiddle.net/g9zp6psj/1/ >>> >>> So it looks like Gecko considers relative positioning of table rows >>> while Blink and Trident don't. >> >> Both behaviors are allowed by CSS 2.1, unfortunately. >> > > Isn't it calling for specs revision, then? > > (I haven't seen the actual wording of the specs, but google returned > pointers to "behavior is undefined" in that conext. What is the point in > leaving it undefined? I mean is "undefinition" serve any purpose there???) A handful of things were left intentionally undefined in CSS 2.1 because browsers differed, and there wasn't a strong expectation that they would converge their behaviors in a reasonable amount of time. Rather than hold up finishing 2.1 indefinitely, we undefined those behaviors, or defined more than one possible behavior that browsers could use. In this case, browsers still haven't converged, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ~TJ
Received on Friday, 24 July 2015 18:14:26 UTC