"L. David Baron" schrieb:
>
> 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.
My mistake, sorry. Guess I didn't quite understand it, thanks for the
clarification.
> > 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
That's a very useful list, thanks. Together with the quirk.css I'm
finally getting somewhere :-).
Matthias
