"Steven T. Hatton" wrote: > > I guess I can try the proposed workaround, though I don't fully > understand what it means. In general this is dissapointing. Trying to > work around this was very costly in terms of time spent. From this > user's perspective, full compliance should be a mantra when it comes to > w3c standards. I understand the world looks different from the POV of > the developer. Nonetheless, it can be a killer when a person is trying > to use a technology and the specified behavior is not functioning. If I > have three days to find a solution and document it using XML, and I > spend one of those days trying to work around a shortcoming such as > this, the value of the XML technology is greatly diminished.
Mozilla is not doing what the CSS 2 spec says it should do, but the W3C CSS style commitee has agreed that Mozilla's way to do it is in fact better than what the spec says. See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17646. /Jonas
