By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,396 Members | 1,835 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,396 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

active link in IE 6 and Opera 7

P: n/a
Hello,
my stylesheet shows different colors for visited, active and hovered links.
It works fine in IE 6, but in Opera 7 the color for the active link (red
background) is never shown. How to explain this?
Here is my code: (code optimization will be done later)

1. The HTML file
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Navigationsframe</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/sew1.css">
</head>
<body style="background-color:#D4D0C8">
<div align="center"><p class="menutitle">Inhalt</p>
<div class="menu01">
<hr width="170px" >
<a class="menu01" href="main.html" target="main">Startseite</a>
<hr width="170px" >
<a class="menu01" href="Archivseite.html" target="main">: : Archive</a>
<hr width="170px" >
<a class="menu01" href="Meinungsseite.html" target="main">Meinungsseite</a>
<hr width="170px" >
<a class="menu01" href="Fotoseite.html" target="main">Fotoseite</a>
<hr width="170px" >
</div><!-- class menutitle -->
</div><!-- align left -->
</body>
</html>

2. The CSS file:

a.menu01:link{
display:block;
width:170px;
text-decoration:none;
text-align:left;
font:14px arial;
padding:2px 2px 2px 0;
margin:2px 1px 1px 1px;
border:1px white;
border-top-style:none;
border-bottom-style:none;
border-left-style:none;
border-right-style:none;
color:white;
background:grey
}
a.menu01:visited{
display:block;
width:170px;
text-decoration:none;
text-align:left;
font:14px arial;
padding:2px 2px 2px 0;
margin:2px 1px 1px 1px;
border:1px white;
border-top-style:none;
border-bottom-style:none;
border-left-style:none;
border-right-style:none;
color:white;
background:blue
}
a.menu01:active {
display:block;
width:170px;
text-decoration:none;
text-align:left;
font:14px arial;
padding:2px 2px 2px 0;
margin:2px 1px 1px 1px;
border:1px white;
border-top-style:none;
border-bottom-style:none;
border-left-style:none;
border-right-style:none;
color:white;
background:red
}
a.menu01:hover {
display:block;
width:170px;
text-decoration:none;
text-align:left;
font:14px arial;
padding:2px 2px 2px 0;
margin:2px 1px 1px 1px;
border:1px white;
border-top-style:none;
border-bottom-style:none;
border-left-style:none;
border-right-style:none;
color:white;
background:green
}

thanks for helping
Peter

Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
36 Replies


P: n/a
Peter Brause wrote:
my stylesheet shows different colors for visited, active and hovered
links. It works fine in IE 6,
That's suprising. Is IE 6 broken in this regard, too?
in Opera 7 the color for the active link (red background) is never
shown. Here is my code: (code optimization will be done later)
In the future, a url is better.
The CSS file:

a.menu01:link{ a.menu01:visited{ a.menu01:active { a.menu01:hover {


The anchor pseudo styles are in the wrong order. It must be link,
visited, hover, active. (This is answered in the faq. Next time, check
the faq before posting in ciwas, and you'll get a faster answer.)

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
The anchor pseudo styles are in the wrong order. It must be link,
visited, hover, active.

No luck, problem with Opera remains.
Peter
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
"Peter Brause" <sa*********@x-mail.net> wrote:
The anchor pseudo styles are in the wrong order. It must be link,
visited, hover, active.

No luck, problem with Opera remains.


Which of the words "In the future, a url is better." did you fail to
understand?

Changing the order _does_ affect the Opera behavior. What remains to be
seen is exactly how you tried (that is, the URL) and exactly what did you
expect "active link" to mean on Opera.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xn****************************@193.229.0.31.. .
Changing the order _does_ affect the Opera behavior. What remains to be
seen is exactly how you tried (that is, the URL) and exactly what did you
expect "active link" to mean on Opera.

OK, I understood and did some corrections.
You can see it at:
http://www.seyso.de/test050504/index.html
The links are in the left frame.
The css file is located at
http://www.seyso.de/test050504/css/sew1.css

The problem is: IE 6 shows the background color for the active link (white)
permanently, when the link is activated.
Opera shows this color only for a microsecond when clicking on the link.
TIA
Peter
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Peter Brause wrote:
The problem is: IE 6 shows the background color for the active link
(white) permanently, when the link is activated.
Yes, IE does get thing wrong. I thought you said the problem was with Opera?
Opera shows this color only for a microsecond when clicking on the link.


That is what browser are supposed to do:

The :active pseudo-class applies while an element is being activated by
the user. For example, between the times the user presses the mouse
button and releases it.

- http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/selector.h...pseudo-classes

Why are you using frames anyway? http://dorward.me.uk/www/frames/

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a

"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c7*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Yes, IE does get thing wrong.

So, is there another method to show users in the navigation frame, where
they are?
Peter
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Peter Brause <sa*********@x-mail.net> wrote:
So, is there another method to show users in the navigation frame, where
they are?


If you get rid of the frames (which is a good idea anyway:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/fra...rame-problems), then you
could modify the navigation panel link for the current page to (a) disable
the link (see item #10 at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html), and
(b) change the appearance so that it's clear where the user is.

Or you could use some other "you are here" mechanism, such as breadcrumb
links.

With frames, you're stuck updating two frames at once, so that you can
replace the navigation frame with one modified as above, at the same time
that you replace the content frame. See
http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/fra...#frame-update2
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Best in Show (Saturday, June 5)
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
JRS: In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, seen in
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Brian <usenet3@julietre
mblay.com.invalid> posted at Sat, 8 May 2004 19:39:08 :
Here is my code: (code optimization will be done later)
In the future, a url is better.


Not necessarily so for those with off-line newsreaders, however.

(This is answered in the faq. Next time, check
the faq before posting in ciwas, and you'll get a faster answer.)

I've been reading the group for a little while, and that is the first
reference to a FAQ that I recall.

Is it posted here on a regular basis? Otherwise, how should one find
it?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/> Jim Ley's FAQ for news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Sun, 9 May 2004, Dr John Stockton wrote:
In the future, a url is better.


Not necessarily so for those with off-line newsreaders, however.


Oh yes, even those, since the causes of problems are often not evident
from the mere content, but may be associated with HTTP headers,
redirections, CSS content-type, and all kinds of other matter which is
not evident if the plaintiff merely appends their actual data to a
news posting.

If the questioner actually -knew- what was relevant, they'd presumably
have solved their own problem already :-} The fact that they resorted
to posting here *should* mean that they exhausted other avenues of
investigation. As such, I'd say we need to see their problem in its
native habitat.

Those who choose to read the postings offline - and refuse to go
online to help with the investigations - would do better to stay
silent in such an enterprise, unless they have a *very* good hunch for
what was going wrong. IMHO and YMMV, natch...
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:19:43 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I've been reading the group for a little while, and that is the first
reference to a FAQ that I recall.

Is it posted here on a regular basis? Otherwise, how should one find
it?


I don't see it posted as often as would be ideal, but search Google for
'FAQ group:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets' and it'll pop up in
less than a minute.

Most ng's have FAQs, though not all post it regularly. However, they are
rather easy to locate as I have shown above.
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Brian wrote:
(This is answered in the faq.
I've been reading the group for a little while, and that is the first
reference to a FAQ that I recall.

Is it posted here on a regular basis?


A Google search shows the most recent posting of the faq in Feb., quite
some time ago.
Otherwise, how should one find it?


The same way you find anything on the 'net: with Google.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ciwas%20faq

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
JRS: In article <op**************@news.individual.net>, seen in
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Neal
<ne*****@yahoo.com> posted at Sun, 9 May 2004 18:14:02 :
On Sun, 9 May 2004 16:19:43 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I've been reading the group for a little while, and that is the first
reference to a FAQ that I recall.

Is it posted here on a regular basis? Otherwise, how should one find
it?

I don't see it posted as often as would be ideal, but search Google for
'FAQ group:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets' and it'll pop up in
less than a minute.


That's all very well; but I would never have thought to include
"group:".

In at least one case, a Web search for a newsgroup FAQ will find, with a
high ranking, that which was the newsgroup FAQ five years ago; there is
merit remaining in it, but it is not the current, maintained mini-FAQ.

Most ng's have FAQs, though not all post it regularly.
In my experience, most newsgroups do not have FAQs, though there may be
FAQs on the topics of most groups; YMMV. IMHO, a FAQ cannot properly be
considered to be a newsgroup FAQ unless it is posted monthly or more
often to the group, in full or in abstract, or it is frequently cited in
the group, with its location; there can thereby be a feeling of
collective responsibility for the accuracy and currency of its contents.

However, they are
rather easy to locate as I have shown above.


But you have not answered the implicit question "where is it?". Those
with off-line newsreaders appreciate being given a URL; that is, after
all, what URLs are for.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/> Jim Ley's FAQ for news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: Neal:
Dr John Stockton wrote:
that is the first reference to a FAQ that I recall.

how should one find it?
search Google for 'FAQ
group:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets' and it'll pop up
in less than a minute.


That's all very well; but I would never have thought to include
"group:".


But you wouldn't have to.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ciwas%20faq
In at least one case, a Web search for a newsgroup FAQ will find,
with a high ranking, that which was the newsgroup FAQ five years ago;
there is merit remaining in it, but it is not the current,
maintained mini-FAQ.
If the op's question was already answered in the faq -- even one that is
5 years old -- doesn't it make sense to mention it? I'd rather get an
answer almost immediately on the web than wait for a response on usenet.
you have not answered the implicit question "where is it?". Those
with off-line newsreaders appreciate being given a URL; that is,
after all, what URLs are for.


STW. It's the first link. And question 9 in that first link answers the
op's question.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
JRS: In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, seen in
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Brian <usenet3@julietre
mblay.com.invalid> posted at Mon, 10 May 2004 15:47:29 :
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: Neal:

Dr John Stockton wrote:

that is the first reference to a FAQ that I recall.

how should one find it?

search Google for 'FAQ
group:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets' and it'll pop up
in less than a minute.


That's all very well; but I would never have thought to include
"group:".


But you wouldn't have to.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ciwas%20faq


But that's a different search to the one Neal advised. Why should a
recent arrival be expected to think of using an acronym?

In at least one case, a Web search for a newsgroup FAQ will find,
with a high ranking, that which was the newsgroup FAQ five years ago;
there is merit remaining in it, but it is not the current,
maintained mini-FAQ.


If the op's question was already answered in the faq -- even one that is
5 years old -- doesn't it make sense to mention it? I'd rather get an
answer almost immediately on the web than wait for a response on usenet.


True; but what if it is mentioned only in the more recent versions, or
there is a correction to the answer?

If one is seeking the FAQ of a newsgroup, one wants, initially, the
latest version, and hopes that it is currently maintained.

you have not answered the implicit question "where is it?". Those
with off-line newsreaders appreciate being given a URL; that is,
after all, what URLs are for.


STW. It's the first link. And question 9 in that first link answers the
op's question.


But you still have not given the URL, although you have evidently seen
it.

Remember that a dial-up user only has intermittent Web access.

ISTM that this newsgroup no longer has an effective newsgroup FAQ,
although in the past it may well have had.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, seen in
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Brian <usenet3@julietre
mblay.com.invalid> posted at Mon, 10 May 2004 15:47:29 :
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: Neal:
Dr John Stockton wrote:

> that is the first reference to a FAQ that I recall.
>
> how should one find it?

search Google for 'FAQ
group:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets' and it'll pop up
in less than a minute.

That's all very well; but I would never have thought to include
"group:".


But you wouldn't have to.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ciwas%20faq


But that's a different search to the one Neal advised. Why should a
recent arrival be expected to think of using an acronym?


well

http://gogle.de/search?q=comp.infosy...lesheets%20faq
If the op's question was already answered in the faq -- even one that is
5 years old -- doesn't it make sense to mention it? I'd rather get an
answer almost immediately on the web than wait for a response on usenet.


True; but what if it is mentioned only in the more recent versions, or
there is a correction to the answer?


What more recent version?
If one is seeking the FAQ of a newsgroup, one wants, initially, the
latest version, and hopes that it is currently maintained.
AFAIK, that is the latest version.
STW. It's the first link. And question 9 in that first link answers the
op's question.


But you still have not given the URL, although you have evidently seen
it.


http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.html
http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html
Remember that a dial-up user only has intermittent Web access.
WEll, remember that dial-up is not excuse.
ISTM that this newsgroup no longer has an effective newsgroup FAQ,
although in the past it may well have had.


Well, it's updated rarely, and posted almost as rarely... Fortunately
maintainer had good policy on what to take in FAQ, so it is still quite
relevant

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Brian:
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Neal:
search Google for 'FAQ
group:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets'

That's all very well; but I would never have thought to include
"group:".
But you wouldn't have to.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ciwas%20faq


But that's a different search to the one Neal advised. Why should a
recent arrival be expected to think of using an acronym?


Are you for real?

http://www.google.com/search?q=comp....lesheets%20faq

You should have tried that yourself before making foolish arguments
about acronyms.
True; but what if it is mentioned only in the more recent versions,
or there is a correction to the answer?
What if, what if, what if. The point is not what if, but what *is*. The
answer the op needed is in the faq. If you ask me, you're just trolling
now. The OP didn't complain that he couldn't find the faq. Why are you?
But you still have not given the URL, although you have evidently
seen it.


Actually, among several posters in this thread, we've provided *several*
trivial Google searches to find the faq. If you can't get to the faq
using one of the suggested searches, too bad. In short, STFW.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
JRS: In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, seen in
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Brian <usenet3@julietre
mblay.com.invalid> posted at Tue, 11 May 2004 16:36:59 :
The OP didn't complain that he couldn't find the faq. Why are you?


Because I was not attempting to assist the OP directly, but was
addressing in my first paragraph the unsatisfactory nature of part of
your reply and in my second the lack of information in the newsgroup
about what some people claim to be the FAQ of the newsgroup.

Judging by what appears to be a copy of its most recent posting, it is
no longer a maintained FAQ :
Posting-Frequency: twice a week (mondays and thursdays)
Last-modified: March 10, 2001
and Sec 7 has no mention of later browsers.

You yourself observed that the OP had apparently not used the FAQ; and
so he had probably not found it, whether or not he had thought of
seeking it. But advising him to read the FAQ did not appear to help
him; and I cannot see which of the nine sections, except maybe Sec 5,
you might have thought would be helpful. You might, indeed, even have
been inadvertently thinking of a different FAQ.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
Dates - miscdate.htm Year 2000 - date2000.htm Critical Dates - critdate.htm
Euro computing - eurocash.htm UK Y2k mini-FAQ: y2k_mfaq.txt Don't Mail News
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Because I was not attempting to assist the OP directly, but was
addressing in my first paragraph the unsatisfactory nature of part of
your reply and in my second the lack of information in the newsgroup
about what some people claim to be the FAQ of the newsgroup.
Read: "I was trolling. And I was getting hits, too."

So good for you.
I cannot see which of the nine sections, except maybe Sec 5, you
might have thought would be helpful.
http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html
(first hit for Google search of "ciwas faq")
Question 9 is directly on point:

"Why is it my ':hover' declaration for links does not work ?"

Heck, just for you, here's the fragment id link where you'll find the
answer:

http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA09
You might, indeed, even have been inadvertently thinking of a
different FAQ.


No, but perhaps you were.

Bye.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
JRS: In article <10*************@corp.supernews.com>, seen in
news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Brian <usenet3@julietre
mblay.com.invalid> posted at Wed, 12 May 2004 13:21:08 :

http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html
(first hit for Google search of "ciwas faq")
Question 9 is directly on point:

"Why is it my ':hover' declaration for links does not work ?"
That is not in what I so far have found.

Heck, just for you, here's the fragment id link where you'll find the
answer:

http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA09

You might, indeed, even have been inadvertently thinking of a
different FAQ.


No, but perhaps you were.

Indeed. By searching for the FAQ, I found a document headed "comp.infos
ystems.www.authoring.stylesheets FAQ v1.95" which I took to be the FAQ.

In searching for the string "FAQ" in it, I now find that it refers to
itself both as FAQ and as meta-FAQ, and that there is one link to
"aFAQ", buried in the centre of Section 5.

A meta-FAQ should never describe itself as a FAQ, and should have
_conspicuous_ links to any corresponding true FAQ.

Moreover, it is the meta-FAQ which is stored in /www.faqs.org/ (also
found by search).

The situation is therefore most unsatisfactory, and the meta-FAQ needs
update to make the distinction clear at _all_ points within it,
including the news header, which includes
Archive-name: www/stylesheets/newsgroup-faq

The actual FAQ may well need similar attention.

Since a newsgroup FAQ should be responsive at least to what is
currently, rather than historically, asked in the newsgroup, it will be
of interest to see whether the maintainer sees these remarks and posts a
clarified version.
You have provided clear evidence supporting my belief that, whenever a
FAQ is cited as a source of advice, there is a need for one or both of
(a) an authoritative, direct, tested URL, (b) a statement like "recently
posted here".

ISTM that it would help if a few of the regulars were to include the
current FAQ URL in their applicable sig files.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/> Jim Ley's FAQ for news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:19:56 +0100, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[...fragments from previous posters...]
You might, indeed, even have been inadvertently thinking
of a different FAQ.No, but perhaps you were.

Indeed. By searching for the FAQ, I found a document headed "comp.infos
ystems.www.authoring.stylesheets FAQ v1.95" which I took to be the FAQ.
That is the "meta-FAQ" which was the first one to be written and it has
as its purpose to describe this newsgroup, not to address CSS authoring
issues.

Admittedly it contains some outdated material today, primarily I would
chose to drop Q&A's #7 and probably also #8 all together. On top of that
Q&A #5 needs an update, I suspect that I do have quite a bit of "link
rot" in there by now.
A meta-FAQ should never describe itself as a FAQ, and should have
_conspicuous_ links to any corresponding true FAQ.
For what its worth, the mFAQ was originally modeled after the guidelines
given in the document "FAQs about FAQs"...

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/faqs/about-faqs/

....and was first peer reviewed here in this NG in 1999 IMMIC.

At the same time I had a conversation with David Alex Lamb (a long time
*.answers moderator) who gave me a few extra suggestions about how to
finalize the mFAQ into an *.answers approved status.

As one example, the archive names...

Archive-name: www/stylesheets/newsgroup-faq
Archive-name: www/stylesheets/authoring-faq

....was suggested by David along with a few other formalia.
Moreover, it is the meta-FAQ which is stored in /www.faqs.org/
Any one who knows how to locate FAQ's for specific NG's at
/www.faqs.org/ would know how setup this following link...

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgrou...ylesheets.html

You will find that both the mFAQ and the aFAQ are properly archived.
The situation is therefore most unsatisfactory, and the meta-FAQ needs
update to make the distinction clear at _all_ points within it,
including the news header, which includes
Archive-name: www/stylesheets/newsgroup-faq
What exact "distinction" needs to be made?
And I insist to say that the archive names are active and correct.
The actual FAQ may well need similar attention.
They both need to be updated, I fully agree with that.
Since a newsgroup FAQ should be responsive at least to what is
currently, rather than historically, asked in the newsgroup,
Well, from what started this it seems like the Q&A #9 in the aFAQ is not
really "historical". The question about how to get :hover to "work" is a
real survivor I would say.
it will be of interest to see whether the maintainer sees these
remarks and posts a clarified version.
I'm very much alive as you may have found out now; also I do have a
solid reason as to why the content of the ciwas FAQ's has been
"neglected" for some period of time [1].
You have provided clear evidence supporting my belief that, whenever
a FAQ is cited as a source of advice, there is a need for one or both
of (a) an authoritative, direct, tested URL,
For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes

....it's right there, in "brown on white" :-)
(b) a statement like "recently posted here".
Q&A #9 in the aFAQ came in there as a result of people trying to use
:hover in the first implementation that tried to support :hover

That was many years ago now, but still we find that those in need of an
explanation do not like to read specs to find an answer.
ISTM that it would help if a few of the regulars were to include the
current FAQ URL in their applicable sig files.


I used to post the _original_ text version of these two FAQ lists, twice
a week, to this NG but had to stop doing that at some time in 2002. I do
have the intention to update both lists and restart scheduled posting of
them.

[1] I was asked to take on the technical coordination, and later also
the site management, of a $40 million project for "North American
Stainless" in Kentucky US. That project kept me excessively occupied
from March 2002 until end of December 2003. There was no time available
to maintain FAQ lists for ciwas during that period of time, sad to say.

HAND

--
Rex
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Jan Roland Eriksson <re*@css.nu> wrote:
For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes
Quote:
"It will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 1 September
2004.

"Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement
by the W3C Membership. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
other than work in progress."

...it's right there, in "brown on white" :-)

Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Dr John Stockton wrote:
Since a newsgroup FAQ should be responsive at least to what is
currently, rather than historically, asked in the newsgroup, it will be
of interest to see whether the maintainer sees these remarks and posts a
clarified version.


What's stopping you from offering a couple volunteer hours each week to
keep the FAQ up to date?
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
On 14 May 2004 03:16:16 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wo****************@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Jan Roland Eriksson <re*@css.nu> wrote:
For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes


Quote:
"It will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 1 September
2004.

"Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement
by the W3C Membership. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
other than work in progress."


Yeah right... But read this from the CSS 2.0 spec:

"This document is currently not maintained. The CSS working group is
developing CSS 2.1. When features common to CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined
differently, please consider the definition in CSS 2.1 as errata for CSS2.
While CSS 2.1 is still a Working Draft, the errata are to be considered
proposed errata."

http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates...12-errata.html

At this moment, CSS 2.1 is much closer to what actually works in browsers
(and clearer, etc) then CSS 2.0.

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:
On 14 May 2004 03:16:16 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wo****************@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Jan Roland Eriksson <re*@css.nu> wrote:
For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes
Quote:
"It will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 1 September
2004.

"Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement
by the W3C Membership. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
other than work in progress."


Yeah right... But read this from the CSS 2.0 spec:

"This document is currently not maintained. The CSS working group is
developing CSS 2.1. When features common to CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined
differently, please consider the definition in CSS 2.1 as errata for CSS2.
While CSS 2.1 is still a Working Draft, the errata are to be considered
proposed errata."


Oddly enough, my copy of CSS 2 says no such thing. Perhaps the
documentation on the W3C website has been sneakily altered, as tends
to happen from time to time.

And what does a phrase like, "This document is currently not
maintained," mean anyway? Not currently subject to continual review
and change? (a bit like the ciwas FAQ?) Perhaps those who like to push
the "standards" myth will one day get it through their heads that the
first requirement for a standard is not ease-of-use but *stability*.

At this moment, CSS 2.1 is much closer to what actually works in browsers
(and clearer, etc) than CSS 2.0.


Publication of a document that described the subset of CSS 2 that was
implementable and omitted the flights of fancy would have been useful,
had it been done in a timely manner. But CSS 1.5 (strangely named "CSS
2.1") has been dawdling along for years now, and is no more an
accurate description of what browsers actually do than CSS 2 is. (Most
browsers implement several features proposed for CSS 3.)

Or does, "This document is currently not maintained," actually mean
that W3C have recanted CSS 2 as a "recommendation" (or as their
apologists often claim, a "standard"). Is CSS 2 currently a W3C
recommendation, or is it not? If CSS 1 is superceded, CSS 2 recanted,
CSS 2.1 a "work in progress", and the various CSS 3 modules merely
proposals for experimental implementation, where then is the mythical
"standard"?

Where is the document describing the "standards compliant code" that
innocent passers-by to this newsgroup are frequently being harangued
for failing to meet?
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
On 14 May 2004 22:44:50 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wo****************@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:
On 14 May 2004 03:16:16 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wo****************@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Jan Roland Eriksson <re*@css.nu> wrote:
>
>> For this particular question about :hover, a pointer straight into the
>> CSS2.1 spec would have been sufficient...
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector....pseudo-classes
>
> Quote:
> "It will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 1 September
> 2004.
>
> "Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement
> by the W3C Membership. It is inappropriate to cite this document as
> other than work in progress."


Yeah right... But read this from the CSS 2.0 spec:

"This document is currently not maintained. The CSS working group is
developing CSS 2.1. When features common to CSS2 and CSS 2.1 are defined
differently, please consider the definition in CSS 2.1 as errata for
CSS2.
While CSS 2.1 is still a Working Draft, the errata are to be considered
proposed errata."


Oddly enough, my copy of CSS 2 says no such thing. Perhaps the
documentation on the W3C website has been sneakily altered, as tends
to happen from time to time.


The URL you snipped made clear this was the Errate to the CSS2, and the
quote applied to the Errata. Which means that the WG is no longer trying
to clearify issues in the CSS 2 spec, but instead only working on getting
CSS 2.1 out of the door. As this has now reached CR status, it means they
are almost done. This production was followed by a large crowd in the
www-style mailing list, which did not speed up the process.
And what does a phrase like, "This document is currently not
maintained," mean anyway? Not currently subject to continual review
and change? (a bit like the ciwas FAQ?) Perhaps those who like to push
the "standards" myth will one day get it through their heads that the
first requirement for a standard is not ease-of-use but *stability*.
At this moment, CSS 2.1 is much closer to what actually works in
browsers (and clearer, etc) than CSS 2.0.


Publication of a document that described the subset of CSS 2 that was
implementable and omitted the flights of fancy would have been useful,
had it been done in a timely manner. But CSS 1.5 (strangely named "CSS
2.1") has been dawdling along for years now, and is no more an
accurate description of what browsers actually do than CSS 2 is. (Most
browsers implement several features proposed for CSS 3.)


I think CSS 2.1 is a good base on which CSS 3 can extend in a more modular
manner. Yes, it would have been great if it had been ready a year ago. But
such discussions are not exactly fruitful.
Or does, "This document is currently not maintained," actually mean
that W3C have recanted CSS 2 as a "recommendation" (or as their
apologists often claim, a "standard"). Is CSS 2 currently a W3C
recommendation, or is it not? If CSS 1 is superceded, CSS 2 recanted,
CSS 2.1 a "work in progress", and the various CSS 3 modules merely
proposals for experimental implementation, where then is the mythical
"standard"?

Where is the document describing the "standards compliant code" that
innocent passers-by to this newsgroup are frequently being harangued
for failing to meet?


Browsers should (and do) indicate which standards they support, standards
don't support browsers.

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:16:16 +0200, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
<ri**@opera.com> wrote:
The URL you snipped made clear this was the Errate to the CSS2, and the
quote applied to the Errata. Which means that the WG is no longer trying
to clearify issues in the CSS 2 spec, but instead only working on getting
CSS 2.1 out of the door.


Er, The W3C Process specifically requires Working Groups to track,
clarify etc. issues raised against the specification, if they're
really not going to do this, they should ask the director to rescind
the recommendation, as they clearly believe it to be so broken as to
not be worth maintaining.

There is a flaw in the process document is that there's no time limit
specificied on responding to issues (so they can just ignore them
forever into the future) but hopefully that'll be fixed one day...

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:
The URL you snipped made clear this was the Errate to the CSS2, and
the quote applied to the Errata.
So we have a CSS 2 specification, which refers to its Errata, which in
turn makes an obscure reference to CSS 2.1 and then says it's a draft and
should be considered as "proposed errata".

The question remains whether there is a W3C Recommendation on CSS (except
CSS 1). The CSS 2.1 contains substantial _changes_ to CSS 2.0, thereby
making CSS 2.0 itself a mixture containing things that are just
"proposed". Take any issue where the text of CSS 2.0 and the CSS 2.1
draft disagree. Today, it resolves according to the current CSS 2.1
draft. Tomorrow, CSS 2.1 draft might say something quite different on the
issue. We could alternatively say that CSS 2.0 keeps changing. Nobody can
honestly claim conformance to it, except by referring to its state on a
given moment of time.
Which means that the WG is no
longer trying to clearify issues in the CSS 2 spec,
Errata aren't for clarifying issues. They are for reporting observed
typos and similar errors in documentation (roughly the way
http://www.rfc-editor.org/ maintains the RFC system, _without_ taking any
liberties in deciding that some definition was an "error" and "fixing" it
on a rainy afternoon).

But I think this has been explained and ignored on the www-style list, so
I can just state that the answer is that the CSS 2 "specification", far
from being a standard, is a vague collection of ideas and rules that may
change at any moment without prior or posterior notification. The
reference to CSS 2.1 itself is just something that someone put into the
"Errata" at some point. It could be removed or changed today.
but instead only
working on getting CSS 2.1 out of the door. As this has now reached
CR status, it means they are almost done.
Let me guess... it will have its own Errata, which will contain a
cocktail of specific corrections of typos, actual changes to the rules,
and vague notes about something that needs revision.
Browsers should (and do) indicate which standards they support,


They cannot, unless there are standards. You cannot claim support to a
moving target. If a "specification" requires A today and B tomorrow and A
and B are two different renderings of the same construct, you can't make
a browser conform.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
On Thu, 20 May 2004 23:21:08 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:


...
Browsers should (and do) indicate which standards they support,


They cannot, unless there are standards. You cannot claim support to a
moving target. If a "specification" requires A today and B tomorrow and A
and B are two different renderings of the same construct, you can't make
a browser conform.


What should the WG do? Make dozens of CSS 2.x subreleases, one for each
time something comes up that needs clarification or appears to be designed
badly? Try to create the perfect spec before setting it free? CSS 2.0 was
too ambitious, but at the time it came out the WG was not receiving much
feedback on the www-style mailinglist. With CSS 2.1, they try to create
something more solid, and that is why it takes so much time. There is also
a large number of proposed CSS 3 modules for continued development of CSS.
There is little reason to suspect that CSS 2.1 will need lots of errata
(of the bad kind).

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:56:28 +0200, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
<ri**@opera.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 23:21:08 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
They cannot, unless there are standards. You cannot claim support to a
moving target. If a "specification" requires A today and B tomorrow and A
and B are two different renderings of the same construct, you can't make
a browser conform.
What should the WG do? Make dozens of CSS 2.x subreleases, one for each
time something comes up that needs clarification or appears to be designed
badly?


Rescind it, or at the very least don't change it with Erratas.
Try to create the perfect spec before setting it free? CSS 2.0 was
too ambitious, but at the time it came out the WG was not receiving much
feedback on the www-style mailinglist.
Did it have 1 implementation of every feature?
With CSS 2.1, they try to create
something more solid, and that is why it takes so much time.


Sure, it's all too ambitious, but that means, stop being so ambitious
and do what you can with the resources you have available.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
Try to create the perfect spec before setting it free? CSS 2.0 was
too ambitious, but at the time it came out the WG was not receiving much
feedback on the www-style mailinglist.


Did it have 1 implementation of every feature?


Were they needed? CSS was designed with the idea that browsers would
ignore properties which they didn't implement, and thus the
specification could specify ahead rather than being (like the dreaded
HTML3.2 that we were recently discussing) no more than a W3C
rubber-stamp on whatever the browser makers had bothered to implement
(in some cases without any evidence of an interworking
specification!).
With CSS 2.1, they try to create
something more solid, and that is why it takes so much time.


Sure, it's all too ambitious, but that means, stop being so ambitious


The problem that the W3C folks gave themselves (and us) was that they
insisted on making substantive amendments to CSS/2.0 by publishing
so-called "Errata", which they then by sleight of hand smuggled back
into what should have been a stable normative definition of 2.0.
After that, it went downhill. Now, nobody really knows what CSS/2.0
really specifies; and now they've left it in the lurch and are
developing a draft 2.1 which isn't yet a TR.

So we have a shipwrecked 2.0, and a non-yet-finalised 2.1, and nothing
we can rely on, beyond studying what the developers of WWW-compatible
browsers have actually implemented. If the behaviours of (say)
Mozilla and Opera differ, then maybe one is right and one is wrong; or
maybe both are within the scope of the recommendations; or maybe
neither of them is right: but without a clear specification, it's
impossible to decide. Add to that the pressure on minority vendors to
emulate the behaviour of the Big One even when it's wrong, and the
mess is complete.
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:27:41 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>Try to create the perfect spec before setting it free? CSS 2.0 was
>too ambitious, but at the time it came out the WG was not receiving much
>feedback on the www-style mailinglist.
Did it have 1 implementation of every feature?


Were they needed?


W3 Process.... but even without that, yes I think they were, how do we
know it's possible to implement everything, how do we know that
implementing one thing doesn't break another, how do we know that
implementing something doesn't completely screw everything else up,
unless we've proven it can be implemented by doing so.
So we have a shipwrecked 2.0, and a non-yet-finalised 2.1, and nothing
we can rely on, beyond studying what the developers of WWW-compatible
browsers have actually implemented. If the behaviours of (say)
Mozilla and Opera differ, then maybe one is right and one is wrong; or
maybe both are within the scope of the recommendations; or maybe
neither of them is right: but without a clear specification, it's
impossible to decide.


But if it's optional presentation, what does it matter if it's
implemeted differently- it cannot change the semantics, that's the
whole (utterly erroneous) claim of CSS.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[snip]
So we have a shipwrecked 2.0, and a non-yet-finalised 2.1, and nothing
we can rely on, beyond studying what the developers of WWW-compatible
browsers have actually implemented. If the behaviours of (say)
Mozilla and Opera differ, then maybe one is right and one is wrong; or
maybe both are within the scope of the recommendations; or maybe
neither of them is right: but without a clear specification, it's
impossible to decide. Add to that the pressure on minority vendors to
emulate the behaviour of the Big One even when it's wrong, and the
mess is complete.


It is even worse than whether Mozilla & Opera differ, isn't it? What if Opera
7.7 differs from Opera 7.23, and Firefox 0.9 differs from Firefox 0.8? Won't
they all be out in the field?

I've stopped updating my testing browsers just because they are supposed to be
"better" in some way, eg. more compliant. I've realised that perhaps I need to
test in a range of the least compliant, not most compliant, browsers. (So IE 5
& IE 6 are both there, of course).

But, this thread has made me realise that I don't even know what "least
compliant" & "most compliant" actually mean. I have an O'Reilly CSS Reference
always available, (in a Dreamweaver panel), and keep checking it. Can I trust
it? Perhaps not.

Authors may say they want browsers to become more & more compliant. But it
that *really* what is best for authors? Doesn't it just generate more variety
to cater for? Wouldn't we actually be better off if browsers froze their
compliance at their current levels? (At least until Longhorn appears).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
Rijk van Geijtenbeek / 2004-05-21 17:56:
On Thu, 20 May 2004 23:21:08 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> wrote:
Browsers should (and do) indicate which standards they support,


They cannot, unless there are standards. You cannot claim support to a
moving target. If a "specification" requires A today and B tomorrow and A
and B are two different renderings of the same construct, you can't make
a browser conform.


What should the WG do? Make dozens of CSS 2.x subreleases, one for each
time something comes up that needs clarification or appears to be designed
badly?


Definately. If you publish some software and you find out that there
was some serious bugs in your release, you'll release a new version.
Not something that has the same version number [1]. Why should
specifications work differently? If it isn't "2.0", then don't call
it "2.0" but "2.1" if it's the first revision after the original "2.0".

What's the point of calling something 2.0 when it really is 2.0 plus
a thousand of small or not so small changes? If you end up calling
it 2.152, perhaps it just tells that the specification was released
as final way too early. However, a browser manufacturer can claim to
support CSS 2.132 and that claim doesn't become invalid when the
"2.0" specification yet again changes via "errata".
[1] Some software has been released with the same version number
after changes and no good has ever arised from that. A well known
example is the MFC "4.2" library, which is stored in a file called
"mfc42.dll". There exists at least three different versions of this
file and all of those are incompatible between each another and
pretty much every piece of software that needs that library wants
different version of it. ...or so I've heard.

--
Mikko
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:27:41 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>Try to create the perfect spec before setting it free? CSS 2.0 was
>too ambitious, but at the time it came out the WG was not receiving much
>feedback on the www-style mailinglist.

Did it have 1 implementation of every feature?
Were they needed?


W3 Process....


But surely it isn't the policy of the W3C to sit on their hands until
some vendor pops up to say they designed something, and then to set
out and write a specification of what the vendor has built? That way
- remember HTML/3.2(spit)? - lies madness.

[ Don't forget that contemporary with the big two fighting it out over
feechers for HTML/3.2, others with more forward perspective were
calmly working on the i18n draft, which became RFC2070 and became the
basis for the HTML internationalisation which we now have. And a
proof-of-concept browser (Alis Tango) which I remember running under
Windows/3.1 and which amply demonstrated the power of their concept.
And of course there was the Cougar draft, which eventually became
HTML4. And of course CSS, which just about brings us back on-topic.]
maybe both are within the scope of the recommendations; or maybe
neither of them is right: but without a clear specification, it's
impossible to decide.


But if it's optional presentation, what does it matter


It certainly *matters* if the result is unusable. For example IE3.*
taking em units (which it didn't understand) and guessing that they
meant px units (which it did). Or an earlier Netscape version taking
the colour "transparent" (which it didn't understand) and assuming
that it meant some particular colour. Both of which made a number of
pages unreadable, except for those who knew how to override these
blunders.

CSS's "optional presentation" means doing the styling *either* per
specification, *or* not at all. It doesn't mean doing it just any
which way the implementer feels like on the day! Well, it shouldn't,
even if some browser/versions give the impression that it did :-{
if it's implemeted differently- it cannot change the semantics,
that's the whole (utterly erroneous) claim of CSS.


I think you're conflating too many different issues - and thus
reaching a position which, while it would be true in the extreme,
would not be even approached if the participants were playing their
proper part in the compact on which the idea of the WWW was based.
Nor even if *most* of them were - which is sort-of the way things are,
even if they could doubtless be better.
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:14:45 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
W3 Process....
But surely it isn't the policy of the W3C to sit on their hands until
some vendor pops up to say they designed something, and then to set
out and write a specification of what the vendor has built?


No, but they do require that before a spec can go to Rec, every part
has at least 1 implementation, preferably 2.
CSS's "optional presentation" means doing the styling *either* per
specification, *or* not at all.


but the optional presentation thing is pretty much a myth (for example
if you support color but not background-color, you're stuffed no
matter how conformant your color support is) CSS needs profiles which
says you implement all these bits exactly conformantly or not at all.
Until we have that, I'm not sure minor spec variations matter - if
margin:1px actually gives a 3px margin - so what, as you say some
situations it can harm, but that's the same as only understanding some
parts of CSS.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
CSS's "optional presentation" means doing the styling *either* per
specification, *or* not at all.
but the optional presentation thing is pretty much a myth


Again I think you're over-doing it. I don't disagree for a moment
that -merely- following the guideline of implementing each individual
feature either accurately or not at all, is going to guarantee
compatibility: it's only one component of compatibility.
(for example if you support color but not background-color, you're
stuffed no matter how conformant your color support is)
Right; and if you support some parts of positioning and not others,
you could land up with some substantive content completely hidden
behind something else. And so on...

So the optionality certainly needs to be used with good sense, not
just tossing a coin.
CSS needs profiles which says you implement all these bits exactly
conformantly or not at all.
Good idea.
Until we have that, I'm not sure minor spec variations matter
It depends what you mean by "minor". Interpreting inches as pixels
is just a "minor" change in units, but the consequence is drastic.
- if margin:1px actually gives a 3px margin - so what,


Fair comment, but the cut between "minor" and "harmful" isn't always
as easy to make as that. Do you recall the chap who had put an
accented character into a CSS comment and consequently got the entire
stylesheet disqualified by one browser?[1]

So, shall we leave this issue as an open question? ;-)

cheers

[1] because the HTML file had been in utf-8, whereas the CSS file,
which in fact was iso-8859-1, had been sent without an HTTP charset
attribute; the browser deduced that the CSS file was also in utf-8
and, finding an octet that was an invalid utf-8 character, had
(correctly) applied the unicode rule that a single invalid octet
sequence in utf-8 makes the entire document invalid. The browser in
question being Mozilla, as I recall.
Jul 20 '05 #37

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.