Re: [css-d] Erratum
On 31/03/2011 6:38 AM, Bob Rosenberg wrote: At 16:49 +0100 on 03/30/2011, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote about [css-d] Erratum: Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Surely the goal is to write fully conformant documents that render reliably (if not necessarily consistently) in all mainstream browsers; if the alternative is to write non- conformant documents in order to pander to the inability of browser vendors to W3C specifications, then count me out, please. ... to pander to the inability of browser vendors to comply with W3C specifications I question if inability is the correct description. With some browser vendors IMO a more accurate term would be refusal. Hello Barney, Marc and Bob, What you have all said is very untrue and all you have achieved is adding more incorrect information to the internet about browsers, W3C specifications and etc. which will show up in search engines. With this statement, the inability of browser vendors to comply with W3C specifications. I can assure that the total reverse is true, especially with the support of the CSS specs. Now I do believe that this is a list for CSS so if any of you are talking about something other than CSS, then it is off topic for this list. Browsers correct implementation of the larger part of the CSS specs was achieved with the release of IE8 and since then, a whole test-suite has developed (from 5,000 to 26,000 test cases) for browsers implementers to achieve interoperability among browsers. The greatest change regarding CSS is the extensive work in re-writing various parts of the CSS2.1 specs to match current browser behavior. When browsers did disagree with behavior, then test cases were created to work out the best approach. -- Alan http://css-class.com/ Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Erratum
Alan Gresley wrote: With this statement, the inability of browser vendors to comply with W3C specifications. I can assure that the total reverse is true. The greatest change regarding CSS is the extensive work in re-writing various parts of the CSS2.1 specs to match current browser behavior. If the total reverse is true, and browser vendors were not unable to comply with W3C specifications, why did it need extensive work in re-writing various parts of the CSS2.1 specs to match current browser behaviour ? It should have required none at all, since all modern browsers would already have been fully compliant. Philip Taylor __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Erratum
On 31/03/2011 6:27 PM, Alan Gresley wrote: Hello Barney, Marc and Bob, I should have said Bob. Apologies barney and Marc. -- Alan http://css-class.com/ Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Erratum
Vive la difference! First, I must disagree in the usage of inability; I don't believe that is the reason they produce the product in the manner they do. I believe it is, more likely, due to their vision and how they want the product to interpret what we write. For that I am eternally grateful because it provides more than just a product that is quirky or different. It causes us to think. It's the differences that help us learn and innovate. The differences incite discussion and debates. It is why we use this D-list (Discussion List). So, as they say. Vive la difference! Marc Hall HallMarc Websites __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Erratum
HallMarc Websites wrote: Vive la difference! First, I must disagree in the usage of inability; I don't believe that is the reason they produce the product in the manner they do. I believe it is, more likely, due to their vision and how they want the product to interpret what we write. For that I am eternally grateful because it provides more than just a product that is quirky or different. It causes us to think. It's the differences that help us learn and innovate. The differences incite discussion and debates. It is why we use this D-list (Discussion List). So, as they say. Vive la difference! Marc Hall HallMarc Websites Oh Marc, you must have so much spare time on your hands if you really want to spend time here working out how to make something render satisfactorily in all major browsers. Would you /really/ not be happier if all you had to do was to consult the relevant W3C specifications and then /know/ how your document would render in all browsers ? I know I would. This list exists because it needs to, but the world would be a much better (and more productive) place if it did not (need to exist, that is). ** Phil. __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Erratum
At 16:49 +0100 on 03/30/2011, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote about [css-d] Erratum: Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Surely the goal is to write fully conformant documents that render reliably (if not necessarily consistently) in all mainstream browsers; if the alternative is to write non- conformant documents in order to pander to the inability of browser vendors to W3C specifications, then count me out, please. ... to pander to the inability of browser vendors to comply with W3C specifications I question if inability is the correct description. With some browser vendors IMO a more accurate term would be refusal. They can but do not for their own reasons. Their attitude, to paraphrase a famous movie line, is W3C Specifications? Our Browsers don't need to obey/conform-to no Stinking W3C Specifications. __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
