On Friday 20 July 2001 19:00, L. David Baron wrote:
| On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Vadim Plessky wrote:
| > I understand that both MS and Netscape needed such "ignore as
| > undefined" feature. Probably, they pushed it to standards body, as
| > they, for sure, were controlling around 95% of browser market,
| > especially in 1995-1996...
| >
| > By the way, from consumer's point of view, MS's concept
| > (auto-correcting) sound more reasonable to me.
|
| In the real world, where standards evolve, that's a very bad idea. In
| MSIE4 (and maybe even 5.0 as well), a selector such as "DIV > P" was
| interpreted as "DIV P" since MSIE auto-corrected the extraneous ">" that
| was not part of the CSS1 selector syntax. Then, in CSS2, the working
| group introduced the new ">" combinator. This means style rules written
| in CSS2 using the descendent combinator will do bizarre and unintended
| things in MSIE4 rather than just be ignored.
Hmm, I agree with you if we speak about rendering (and auto correction) "in
general".
I was pointing out to the fact that "height: 8" expanded to "height: 8px" by
MS IE, and this is also supported by Konqueror in *compatibility* mode.
In strict mode, Konqueror follows standard.
I don't know what exactly *corrections*, on top of this, MS IE does.
Yes, it's pretty well known that authoring sodtware from *leading companies*
(Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft) produces crappy code.
There was buzz about it recently, with Web Standards group trying to change
mind of these companies.
So far, they haven't succeeded.
>From my point of view, nobody can blaim some web developer for creating "not
validating page" if he/she works in some of those packages.
You can't expect all people creating hand-crafted web pages in Notepad or
KWrite.
There is a general "given" rule in the real world : only 5% (by some other
estimations, only 1%) of people can be managers. So, the rest of people (95%)
are *managed* by those managers. Nothing bad with it, just those 95% can't be
managers, that's it...
The same with web authoring. You can be genious and create wonderful
hand-crafted pages, validating both as valid HTML and CSS1/2.
But most people (99%) go by standard way: buy authoring software, and use it.
If it works, why they should do something else?
(do you want everybody be a manager?..)
On more point on "consumer's point of view" from my side.
I have to say that working "on principles of marketing" was not invented by
me :-)
There are 2 general ways:
1) listen to your customer, what he needs, likes/dislikes, etc.
and therefor implement these features, etc.
2) "we make product, others use it"
in this case, developers/engineers *design product*, add features they like
in it, and don't care (in general) about customers.
There are many examples in real world where you can see both approaches.
Unfortunately, second approach is more common.
Well, it's inside human nature to be *ignorrant*
Unfortunately, I have to say that Mozilla's approach is no 2).
It's nice to say "Mozilla follows standards", but in reality all (potential)
Mozilla customers are feeling theirself abandoned.
It's not related to Mozilla geeks who always will tell you "Mozilla rules!"
Miscosoft, in general, also fall in category 2). (that's why I use Konqueror
nowdays!)
But in some aspects (like "usability", "startup time", "crash resistance") MS
was really listening wnat customers want.
Yep, most people more interested in browser startup time than in its CSS
compliance. One more fact from the real life...
BTW: You may want to look at WDF mail archives (Web Development Forum), a lot
of web-design issues discussed there, by web authors.
Check what's their perception about different web browsers (and different
standards)
Unfortunately, I found that none on Mozilla developers subscribed to those
lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(to subscribe: send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject "subscribe")
If Mozilla and/or Netscape developers were participating in those forums, I
believe a lot of confusion could be excluded from this list.
Traffic on those lists is much higher than on mozilla-layout or mozilla-dom,
and a lot of knowledgable people subscribed there.
So I really recommend everybody to subscribe on WDF lists before continuing
this thread. :-)
|
| If you'd prefer that the CSS spec never contain a new feature, then your
| position is fine. However, if you've ever asked for or wanted a new
| feature to be added to CSS, then it's hypocritical.
Yep...
|
| -David
--
Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html
Do you have Arial font installed? Just test it!
http://kde2.newmail.ru/font_test_arial.html
