|
|
Posted by Ben C on 10/26/06 14:52
On 2006-10-26, John Dunlop <usenet+2004@john.dunlop.name> wrote:
> Gιrard Talbot:
>
>> How about telling visitors using buggy, old, non-web-standards-compliant
>> browsers
>
> You wouldn't even need browser sniffing to do that.
>
>> that they may consider switching if they want his webpage code
>> to render as expected (layout, formating, functionality)?
>
> I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between layout and
> formatting, but functionality isn't rendered. The HTML *document* is
> rendered, rendered according to the *user-agent*.
>
> Who is to say what counts as 'rendered as expected'? Expected by who?
W3C.
> If someone takes it upon themselves to prescribe and proscribe
> different renderings, who granted them the authority to do so?
They do that for HTML, although I don't know if they were actually ever
"granted the authority".
I think they did just take it upon themselves.
> The interworking specifications do not restrict the rendering of HTML
> documents, but actually allow for different renderings.
Yes, but there are W3C standards for rendering as well.
See http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ which describes the box model in detail.
CSS 2.1 does explictly leave certain things "up to the UA" (exactly
where you put the list item marker bullets for example), and some other
things it just doesn't mention.
But it covers most things, is generally not ambiguous, and Opera and
Firefox conform very well to it. Others have said that even IE is not
that bad in strict mode.
You're right though that if you publish HTML with no styles, you should
have few or no expectations about rendering.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|