Monday, May 21, 2007, 2:43:37 PM, Hussein Shafie wrote: > Daniel Dekany wrote: >> Monday, May 21, 2007, 11:36:29 AM, Hussein Shafie wrote: >> >>>Daniel Dekany wrote: >>>>With an example: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> <foo> >>>> <bar> >>>> Blah >>>> </bar> >>>> </foo> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>If foo has a vertical margin A and bar has a vertical margin B, and >>>>neither elements have vertical padding or border, then the total >>>>vertical margin around the text should be max(A, B). But it seems that >>>>with XXE it's A + B instead. >> [snip] >>>Yes, this is a bug. The problem is that I'm not sure we'll be able to >>>fix it. I mean: this is probably a hard-to-fix bug which may require >>>important changes. >> >> But that indicates that those important changes indeed should be done. >> I mean, if a CSS implementation can't implement a basic normal flow >> box model rule (which is also a very useful rule in practice) then >> certainly something went rather wrong in its design. > > This bug exists since year 2000 (XXE Milestone 1). You are the first > person to notice it/have problems with it. > (Probably because the workaround is so easy.)
Ehhh... please. Of course it's most certainly not because of that (and there is no easy workaround AFAIK). I have worked in other projects, and my experience is that users simply don't give a sh*t about bugs that are not getting into their way firmly. They just want to be over their work, and are so lazy and unfair with the developers that they will not delimit and report bugs even if they get the software for free. And in this case, you can imagine that most users will not stuck pondering over a damn too big vertical space somewhere (they just silently endure it), not to mention start finding out why is it there, and furthermore not to mention realizing that it's not supposed to be there according the CSS rules (i.e. that they shouldn't need to do whatever CSS complications if they wanted to get rid of it). Just what chance do you see a such thing being realized and reported? But it's still an annoying bug, even if almost nobody will realize it's a bug, and not something we inherently must live with, because CSS is like that. How could they know it could be better, because it's not the way the CSS designers meant it to be? No wonder I'm the first who reported it. (And that it's an important and bad deviation from the CSS recommendation is just a fact.) -- Best regards, Daniel Dekany
