- From: Rafal Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:16:52 +0000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr. " <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
W dniu 24.07.2015 o 20:13, Tab Atkins Jr. pisze: > 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, [------------------] >> >> 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)_/¯ > Surely that makes sense. But time pass, people get experience, and may be some parts of that uncharted territory can get consensus now? That would be a call from humble programmer having to cope with all those variants :( Anyway, thank you for explanations. -R
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2015 19:20:41 UTC