Den 12.08.2017 20.52, skrev Ezequiel Garzón:
Georg, while I haven't gone over the standard in depth, I assumed the
rendering I saw in all browsers was compliant, and in that sense
logical and expected. I was shooting for something along the lines of
why you think it was defined this way.

Well, I do not even know if that particular behavior was /intentionally/ /defined/, or if it came about by accident...

Look at it this way: the first browsers was developed without much of what we may call "standards", and there was _no_ CSS to begin with. Standards came later, and those first standard bodies simply picked up what there was some agreement about between competing browser developers, and mainly wrote "status quo" at the time into standards for HTML. Even later, when the first - basic - CSS standards was formulated, they kept on building those on "status quo" in the browser world, while trying to refine these standards in such a way that browser developers would come on board and actually develop browsers that (more or less) followed the same standards, in order to achieve interoperability. Lots of "less logical solutions" got dropped as standards organs - mainly the W3C - wrote and cleaned up standards, but there are still plenty "less logical" stuff left in today's standards from way back in the browser war era. Some of the old stuff is also left in today's standards to assure that new browsers that /follow /standards can render quite old pages /somewhat/ acceptable.

So, I don't know /who /- once upon a time - defined this particular behavior - some browser developer or a standard body, or /why/ they did it. Clearly noone has found good reasons to change it over the years, so now we are kind of stuck with it. As standards have evolved to provide us with ways to code around and/or avoid old behaviors that we don't like, it should not cause us any real problems for us today.

css-discuss []
List wiki/FAQ --
List policies --
Supported by --

Reply via email to