[Zope] [OT]Browser Differences

[Bill Anderson]

On 01 Jul 2001 23:00:02 -0400, marc lindahl wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
> 
> > 
> > I am sure you did no tintend to slant the state of affairs by
> > intentionally not mentioning the problems/bugs with IE, but just teh
> > same, it is "fair" to include them as well.
> > 
> > It is also fair to all of the browsers that some of the alleged bugs
> > with them are not bugs, but simply differences in handling unclear, or
> > vague parts of the various specifications.
> > 
> > Just because browser X does it differently than browser Y, does not make
> > it a bug.
> 
> True.  But if you read the HTML4 spec, XHTML, etc. and code a page following
> that, and see what you get, what happens.  Are the W3C specs valid or not?

Well, much of the specs are incomplete, some intentionally so. Ther are
uses of such words as "should, may, shall", in addition to the
"must,will". If a spec says something 'should' do something, and it does
not, it may be an annoyance, but it is not a bug. if it says 'may' or
says it is up to the client program, nad it does not, is is neither a
bug, nor non-conforming.

As far as a spec being valid, I see quite often that a numbe rof HTML
Spec releases specifically say they included a number of bugfixes
-in-the-spec-.

oh, and w3 still lists XHTML as a recommendation. IIRC, this means it
has not been made a formal spec. While it will likely become one, it is
not currently, and we cannot rightly fault current browsers for not
adhering to it. In the world of standrads, it is an important
distinction.

Do some browsers render differently, even given strict HTML? yes. it is
in the spec that they can, on various things. Even XHTML allows for a
certain leeway in rendering choices.



> My limited experience shows me that the IE browsers do a better job of
> rendering a moderately complicated page (like the CMF default template).

I have a number of sites I have had to make quite a bit of extra
coding/authoring/whatever to work aorund IE's displaying patterns. Much
of them due to

  a) it screws up the box model*
     and
  b) nested tables
 
> 
> > Again, I have not made argument with CSS support, merely noted that CSS
> > is not HTML. it is, indeed, a separate sepcification and standard.
> 
> But it is part of the HTML4 standard that CSS has to be supported, and all
> the standards after (e.g. XHTML), right?

I don't recall the spec saying that to follow this spec you have to
follow all later ones. That would be nonsensical. or are you meaning
something else?

* IE Trashing the Box model

According to the spec, a box that is listed as 300 wide, and a 20
internal padding is 340 wide. IE makes the box 300 wide, and shrinks
internally to make the padding. Now, in 6.0beta, this has partially been
resolved. 

Now, unless we can convert this back to zope-ness, I suggest we take it
private if you wish to continue.


Bill