[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: Fwd: CSS1 compliance/support
From:       Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples () mtu-net ! ru>
Date:       2001-10-25 15:56:23
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 25 October 2001 12:50, Dirk Mueller wrote:
|   On Don, 25 Okt 2001, Vadim Plessky wrote:
|   > Questions are:
|   > 1) is Konqueror/KHTML CSS1 compliant?
|
|   No, and it will never be. As CSS2 is in some points CSS1-incompatible we
|   always follow CSS2 rules, which makes us fail CSS1 tests, but thats okay,
|   because no other important browser follows the CSS1 tracks either as far
| as I know.

Microsoft claims that MacIE5 (version of IE running on _Macintosh only_, 
'Tasman' rendering engine) fully supports CSS1.
And MS also claims that recently released IE6/Win has also CSS1 support.
Quoting mail which I fwd'ed:
  "IE6/Windows has full CSS Level 1 compliance, just as IE5/Mac did when it
shipped over a year ago, which was certainly not true for other browsers at
the time"
So, it makes me thinking that they really did some job and got IE working, at 
least on W3C CSS1 test suite.
Anyway, compliance with  W3C CSS1 test suite is no way indication for 
*quality of browser*. That's why I am trying to do it in alternative way (own 
CSS test suite).

BTW: Tantek Celik makes very clear statement that CSS2 specification is 
broken, at least partially. And he supports idea of getting CSS 2.1 in place, 
not waiting for CSS3 being completed, with those bugs in spec.fixed.
Unfortunately, other members of CSS WG are not so verbose. Just one or two 
comments from "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@microsoft.com> (IE/Windows project 
leader). Netscape and Mozilla hackers are somewhat silent. May be, because 
they are busy closing Mozilla bugs :-)
And no comment from Opera.

|
|   If you leave out the incompatibilities we're close to conformant, which
|   doesn't mean that we support full CSS1, it means that all we leave out is
|   optional anyway. I can't remember off-hand what parts we fail in CSS1
|   though, if you find out, let me know.

I was thinking to re-run CSS1 tests once more. Unfortunately, I am somewhat 
short on time at a moment. Any takers? :-)
// or I will do it after Nov. 7th.

Anyway, I think it makes sense ti re-run these tests with IE6, too, and 
compare results to Konq results.
Remember that we can add some "hacks" in *quirk* mode, and become compatible 
with CSS1 only in *quirk* mode.
What about such proposal?  Funny, isn't it?
But I guess that's what MS did with IE6. My testing shows that they have 
completely different rendering for the same code (valid HTML code!), with 
just Doctype changed from Transitional to Strict.

|
|   Dirk

mail from www-style mailing list (quoted "as is")
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: "inline" elements in CSS2 box model, and "inline-block" in CSS3
 From: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
 To: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>, Bjoern Hoehrmann 
<derhoermi@gmx.net>
 Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "css2-editors@w3.org" 
<css2-editors@w3.org>
 
From: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
Subject: Re: "inline" elements in CSS2 box model, and "inline-block" in CSS3
Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2001, 7:26 PM
> On Wednesday 17 October 2001 11:28, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> |   * Vadim Plessky wrote:
> |   >Therefor, I would like to propose to include (*backport* from CSS3) {
> |   >display: inline-block; } in CSS2 specifications.
> |   >It should speedup adoption of "inline-block" by 2-4 years, as
> |   > manufacturers of mainstream browsers, realistically speaking,
> |   >can add support for it within 1 year.
> |
> |   Why does this property need to be defined in CSS Level 2 in order to be
> |   supported? Adding new features through errata is in general not a good
> |   idea.
>
> As it's pretty well known, there is none browser on our planet
> supporting CSS1. (I mean, *all* of CSS1, without any bugs)

You could just shorten that statement to:

 "there is none[sic] browser on our planet without any bugs"

So I don't really see your point.

> And CSS1 was introduced ...yehh, in 1996.

And IE5/Mac supported all of CSS1 ... in March of 2000 (over 1.5 yrs ago).

> So it seems none will support [all] CSS2 until early 2005 or late 2004...

Why should any browser support all of CSS2, when portions of CSS2 itself are
still broken?  I don't think any browser will ever support "all of CSS2".

> I have no idea on Microsoft position on this, though.

Well, since it wasn't obvious:

a. we publicly introduced 'inline-block' over two years ago
   in the 16 Sep 1999 UI for CSS WD:

 http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-css3-userint-19990916#display

b. we implemented display:inline-block in IE5/Mac and IE6/Windows.

> BTW: this construction, "inline-block", is quite important for correct
> layouting.

Strongly agreed.

> Current CSS2 layout definition for "vertical" block placement is badly
> defined and misleading.

Well, I'm not sure if I would make that strong a statement.

But I will say that it is "insufficient" - for example, for _easily_
achieving vertically centering effects without relying on position:fixed and
display:table-cell hackery.

> Adding "inline-block" will clarify this (a little bit :-) and make  
confusion
> smaller.

Agreed.

> In particular, HTML export filter from word processors should benefit 
greatly
> from writing blocks as "inline-block", instead of writing unnecessary 
tables.

Agreed.

However, I don't think this should be a change to CSS2, as it is very much
an addition.

Should, however, there be a CSS2.1 (which removed the bad/unimplemented
bits, and added a few simple improvements), I would be in favor of adding
"display:inline-block".

Regards,

Tantek

...........................................................................
Tantek Çelik                                          tantekc@microsoft.com
W3C CSS wg representative, HTML wg alternate rep     tantek@cs.stanford.edu
Tasman Development                                    Microsoft Corporation

-- 

Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html
KDE mini-Themes
http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]