On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:
> "L. David Baron" wrote (about the amount of code for "quirks" mode):
> > standard.) If you count DOM HTML (as opposed to DOM Core) as a quirk
> > (despite its standardization), then it would be much higher. And while
>
> actually means. And this is the first time I hear that the DOM is part
> of these modes, too.
I never said that the DOM is involved in quirks modes. I said that if
you consider code that exists for backwards compatibility but is *not*
differentiated in the modes, then you might have to consider some or all
of the HTML DOM even though it is standardized.
> Of course some of the functionality can be "reverse-engineered" with
> test cases, but I'd much prefer some real documentation. Any chance for
> that? Or should we treat Mozilla browsers as a "black box"?
I just wrote a list of what I could find:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/mozilla/quirklist
-David
--
L. David Baron <URL: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/ >
Mozilla Contributor <URL: http://www.mozilla.org/ >
Invited Expert, W3C CSS WG <URL: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ >
