Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

[Matt Probert]

Is it just me (probably) or is Mozilla and the newer Firefox full of
CSS rendering bugs?

I ask, because some strange effects occur with Mozilla and Firefox
which don't happen in Opera and dare I say it, IE.

Like, for example, non-selection of a font-face for one style element,
even though it is selected okay for another element and the colour,
decoration and size are all rendered correctly!

Not recognising the 'border' parameter (eg: border: 1px solid black;)

Not rendering 'width' correctly (eg: width: 180px;)

Matt

--
If your encyclopaedia doesn't list "widget glass", you're reading the wrong encyclopaedia.
The Probert Encyclopaedia. Its not the same.

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Chris Morris]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

comments@prober tencyclopaedia. com (Matt Probert) writes:[color=blue]
> Is it just me (probably) or is Mozilla and the newer Firefox full of
> CSS rendering bugs?[/color]

I expect it is. But the ones you list below seem unlikely.
[color=blue]
> I ask, because some strange effects occur with Mozilla and Firefox
> which don't happen in Opera and dare I say it, IE.
>
> Like, for example, non-selection of a font-face for one style element,
> even though it is selected okay for another element and the colour,
> decoration and size are all rendered correctly!
>
> Not recognising the 'border' parameter (eg: border: 1px solid black;)
>
> Not rendering 'width' correctly (eg: width: 180px;)[/color]

This is where some test case URLs would be really useful. There could
be hundreds of reasons, only one a browser bug, why these don't do
what you expect.

--
Chris

[C A Upsdell]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

"Matt Probert" <comments@probe rtencyclopaedia .com> wrote in message
news:40f69ca5.3 3574497@news.nt lworld.com...[color=blue]
> Is it just me (probably) or is Mozilla and the newer Firefox full of
> CSS rendering bugs?
>
> I ask, because some strange effects occur with Mozilla and Firefox
> which don't happen in Opera and dare I say it, IE.
>
> Like, for example, non-selection of a font-face for one style element,
> even though it is selected okay for another element and the colour,
> decoration and size are all rendered correctly!
>
> Not recognising the 'border' parameter (eg: border: 1px solid black;)
>
> Not rendering 'width' correctly (eg: width: 180px;)[/color]

Are you comparing apples with apples, e.g. by ensuring that a DOCTYPE is
used that triggers standards mode in all these browsers?

Examples would be nice.

[Matt Probert]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:50:45 GMT "C A Upsdell"
<cupsdell0311XX X@-@-@XXXrogers.com> broke off from drinking a cup of
tea at to write:
[color=blue]
>Are you comparing apples with apples, e.g. by ensuring that a DOCTYPE is
>used that triggers standards mode in all these browsers?
>[/color]

No, which is why I'm asking! I had wondered if it was to do with
DOCTYPEs, which I shall now look into. Thanks for the suggestion - i
did ask if it was just me! <g>

Matt

--
If your encyclopaedia doesn't list "widget glass", you're reading the wrong encyclopaedia.
The Probert Encyclopaedia. Its not the same.

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Matt Probert]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:46:33 GMT comments@prober tencyclopaedia. com
(Matt Probert) broke off from drinking a cup of tea at The Probert
Encyclopaedia to write:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:50:45 GMT "C A Upsdell"
><cupsdell0311X XX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> broke off from drinking a cup of
>tea at to write:
>[color=green]
>>Are you comparing apples with apples, e.g. by ensuring that a DOCTYPE is
>>used that triggers standards mode in all these browsers?[/color][/color]

Pkay, it was a matter of DOCTYPES. Thanks for pointing me down that
road.

I thought CSS was fixed. There's CSS1 and CSS2 and they are defined,
but changing the DOCTYPE results in *very* different interpretations
of the CSS suggestions.

Perhaps I should wade through the incomprehensibl e brambles that are
the W3C specs <g>

Matt

--
If your encyclopaedia doesn't list "widget glass", you're reading the wrong encyclopaedia.
The Probert Encyclopaedia. Its not the same.

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Brian]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

Matt Probert wrote:
[color=blue]
> it was a matter of DOCTYPES.
>
> Perhaps I should wade through the incomprehensibl e brambles that
> are the W3C specs <g>[/color]

You'll find nothing on doctype switching afaik. Doctype switching was
an idea created by the browser makers, ostensibly to accomodate badly
authored pages but introducing a new set of problems. Some of the gory
details:

http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matt Probert wrote:
[color=blue]
> Pkay, it was a matter of DOCTYPES. Thanks for pointing me down that
> road.
>
> I thought CSS was fixed.[/color]

That's almost correct. (Just teeny adjustments in CSS2.1, and a few
things taken out of CSS2 that it seemed nobody was going to implement
- but nothing remotely on the scale of the pratical differences
between CSS2 specification and actual browser behaviour).
[color=blue]
> There's CSS1 and CSS2 and they are defined, but changing the DOCTYPE
> results in *very* different interpretations of the CSS suggestions.[/color]

Now you're confusing buggy client behaviour with differences in the
specifications.
[color=blue]
> Perhaps I should wade through the incomprehensibl e brambles that are
> the W3C specs <g>[/color]

Not really. Browser "quirks modes" are an attempt by the browser
makers to perpetrate their original bugs (so as not to upset those
foolish virgins who designed their pages "to" the browser bugs,
instead of staying within the specifications) - while still offering a
standards-conform-wards mode for properly made pages.

Once they'd taken that decision, they needed some kind of handle for
guesstimating whether a page was intended to be standards-conforming
or reliant on old bugs. Unfortunately, they seem to have hit upon a
rather unfortunatate choice of handle for that purpose, namely the
notorious "DOCTYPE switching". The rest, as they say, is history.
But you won't really find any of this in W3C specifications.

[Brian]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[color=blue]
> Browser "quirks modes" are an attempt by the browser makers to
> perpetrate their original bugs
>
> Once they'd taken that decision, they needed some kind of handle
> for guesstimating whether a page was intended to be
> standards-conforming or reliant on old bugs. Unfortunately, they
> seem to have hit upon a rather unfortunatate choice of handle for
> that purpose, namely the notorious "DOCTYPE switching".[/color]

Your posts hints that there might have been another (better) way. Was
there?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Christoph Paeper]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

*Brian* <usenet3@juliet remblay.com.inv alid>:[color=blue]
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Unfortunately, they seem to have hit upon a rather unfortunatate choice
>> of handle for that purpose, namely the notorious "DOCTYPE switching".[/color]
>
> Your posts hints that there might have been another (better) way.[/color]

To use an *HTML* feature to switch *CSS* rendering behaviour, is really
strange. If they would at least parse the HTML differently, more correctly
in "standards conforming" mode!
[color=blue]
> Was there?[/color]

If, I would have used the approach of using standard compliant mode by
default and as soon as an parse error occured, the rendition would restart
in quirks mode. This would of course make buggy pages take longer to load,
which is not such a bad thing IMO.

--
The penis mightier than the sword.

[C A Upsdell]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

"Christoph Paeper" <christoph.paep er@nurfuerspam. de> wrote in message
news:opsa8mqrj6 b8p244@crissov. heim4.tu-clausthal.de...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Unfortunately, they seem to have hit upon a rather unfortunatate choice
> >> of handle for that purpose, namely the notorious "DOCTYPE switching".[/color]
> >
> > Your posts hints that there might have been another (better) way.[/color]
>
> To use an *HTML* feature to switch *CSS* rendering behaviour, is really
> strange. If they would at least parse the HTML differently, more correctly
> in "standards conforming" mode!
>[color=green]
> > Was there?[/color]
>
> If, I would have used the approach of using standard compliant mode by
> default and as soon as an parse error occured, the rendition would restart
> in quirks mode. This would of course make buggy pages take longer to load,
> which is not such a bad thing IMO.[/color]

The problem with this is that you can have a valid page that depends on
quirks mode.

I personally would have preferred it if a META tag had been used instead a
DOCTYPE to specify the mode.

[Matt Probert]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:25:04 +0100 "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> broke off from drinking a cup of tea at
University of Glasgow to write:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> There's CSS1 and CSS2 and they are defined, but changing the DOCTYPE
>> results in *very* different interpretations of the CSS suggestions.[/color]
>
>Now you're confusing buggy client behaviour with differences in the
>specifications .[/color]

But I'm talking about "border: 1px solid black;" which is frequently
ignored by browsers, but as I understand it should give a solid 1
pixel wide border around the block? Which it does depending upon
doctype.

Matt

--
If your encyclopaedia doesn't list "widget glass", you're reading the wrong encyclopaedia.
The Probert Encyclopaedia. Its not the same.

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

[Gus Richter]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Matt Probert wrote:
>[color=green]
>> it was a matter of DOCTYPES.
>>
>> Perhaps I should wade through the incomprehensibl e brambles that
>> are the W3C specs <g>[/color]
>
>
> You'll find nothing on doctype switching afaik. Doctype switching was
> an idea created by the browser makers, ostensibly to accomodate badly
> authored pages but introducing a new set of problems. Some of the gory
> details:
>
> http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html
>[/color]

Matthias suggests that IE and Moz introduced Doctype Switching when
AFAIK Mac was the first to use it, followed by NS/Moz, then IE and
finally Op.

--
Gus

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Brian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>[color=green]
> > standards-conforming or reliant on old bugs. Unfortunately, they
> > seem to have hit upon a rather unfortunatate choice of handle for
> > that purpose, namely the notorious "DOCTYPE switching".[/color]
>
> Your posts hints that there might have been another (better) way. Was
> there?[/color]

You put me in an awkward position there, since to give a good answer
to that, I'd have to adopt the position in which perpetuating legacy
bugs for the sake of wrongly-designed pages was a good idea. I can
sort-of understand the motivations that makes a browser vendor feel
that they have to do that, but frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing
people saying "I know that my page is fine because it works in IE, but
it fails in [Mozilla/Opera/whatever]". And 99% of the time, the fact
it does what the misguided author intended in IE proves only that it's
been designed to rely on specific bugs and error-corrections provided
by IE.

But IE have been known to fix bugs, and to change their error fixups,
whereas the interworking specifications (for all that they may be
flawed in parts) do provide a firm framework for proper interworking.

I recall a number of cases from the early days of Netscape. As each
new version came out, some "feature" of the previous version upon
which web page authors had been relying would get fixed, and then
authors would scramble to fix their web page defects. A few weeks or
months later, it was all over, and people wondered what the fuss had
been about.

But now we have seemingly thousands of millions of broken pages out
there, and little prospect of most of them getting repaired, hence the
push to maintain buggy browser behaviour indefinitely. I can only
deplore this.

So, I have very mixed feelings about the implementation of quirks mode
at all. But assuming we want it in spite of that, how would we go
about designing it? An open-ended question. Obviously, we can't
expect these legacy wasters to put any kind of explicit flag on their
pages saying "please can you render this in quirks mode", even if
we're hoping to promote standards-conforming web pages into the future
by having our browser "default" to standards-conforming behaviour. On
the other hand it would be rude to demand that standards-conforming
authors should put some additional "real-W3C" declaration onto their
pages in order to get standards-conforming mode.

So I suppose it's inevitable that the switching has to be done by some
kind of indirect clues as to what the authors intended. OK, the
bottom line seems to be that I haven't a better solution, I don't want
there to be a solution (other than "fix those misbegotten pages"), but
I'm still grumpy at the solution which was picked. Does that answer
your question? (no).

all the best.

[Darin McGrew]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

Christoph Paeper <crissov@gmx.ne t> wrote:[color=blue]
> If, I would have used the approach of using standard compliant mode by
> default and as soon as an parse error occured, the rendition would restart
> in quirks mode. This would of course make buggy pages take longer to load,
> which is not such a bad thing IMO.[/color]

In theory, I like this basic approach, too. I might even throw in a few
other indicators, such as tables that use only TR and TD elements (with no
TH, CAPTION, THEAD, TBODY, etc.). And I definitely think standards mode
should be the default, unless the document shows itself deserving of quirks
mode.

But in practice, it becomes difficult to explain what causes browsers to
choose one mode or the other. Look how confusing the DOCTYPE switching is.
Imagine explaining to someone why a simple mistake (e.g., <em>wow<em><p >)
suddenly broke their entire page in bizarre ways, with no obvious relation
to the mistake itself.

Of course, it would be simpler still if browsers just stuck to standards
mode, and didn't bother with the quirks mode nonsense.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanford alumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/

"Many people climb the ladder of success only to discover that
it is leaning against the wrong wall." - Ray Stedman

[Chris Morris]

Re: Mozilla full of CSS rendering bugs?

comments@prober tencyclopaedia. com (Matt Probert) writes:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:25:04 +0100 "Alan J. Flavell"[color=green]
> >Now you're confusing buggy client behaviour with differences in the
> >specifications .[/color]
>
> But I'm talking about "border: 1px solid black;" which is frequently
> ignored by browsers, but as I understand it should give a solid 1
> pixel wide border around the block? Which it does depending upon
> doctype.[/color]

Could you give two URLs, one where it does what you think it should,
and one where it doesn't? It's hard to tell what's going on just from
this assertion.

--
Chris