where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much
of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.
of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.
-
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
> where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much[color=blue]
> of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.[/color]
I tried FF for weeks and the output is: no effective CSS standard is
implemented except of CSS 0.8 or CSS 1.45.
Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
misplaced design is shown: shame.
Developing Liquid / floating design is nearly impossible.
Usermanagement and java support on windows platform ... like CSS
implementation.
FF is not the browser i expected: deinstalled.
CG.
*FF 1.0 is a hype we have to stand. Waiting for a better one.
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
Christian G. wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much
>>of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.[/color]
>
> I tried FF for weeks and the output is: no effective CSS standard is
> implemented except of CSS 0.8 or CSS 1.45.
> Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
> misplaced design is shown: shame.
>
> Developing Liquid / floating design is nearly impossible.
> Usermanagement and java support on windows platform ... like CSS
> implementation.
> FF is not the browser i expected: deinstalled.[/color]
....and using what instead?
I hope this is a troll - sure, there are some CSS problems remaining in
FF, but far fewer than in most other browsers. Fluid design is easy.
Can you provide specific examples?
--
Mark.
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
Mark Tranchant <mark@tranchant .plus.com> writes:[color=blue]
> Christian G. wrote:[color=green]
> > implemented except of CSS 0.8 or CSS 1.45.[/color]
>
> I hope this is a troll[/color]
The referencing of two nonexistent standards would be a giveaway.
[color=blue]
> - sure, there are some CSS problems remaining in FF, but far fewer
> than in most other browsers. Fluid design is easy.[/color]
I don't know. I'd say recent Gecko and recent Opera were about the
same for remaining bugs [1] and KHTML appears to have caught up with
them too.
There's only IE other than that that's made any significant effort to
support CSS, which does lag behind, obviously.
[1] If only they were the *same* bugs.
--
Chris
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
Chris Morris <c.i.morris@dur ham.ac.uk> writes:[color=blue]
> I don't know. I'd say recent Gecko and recent Opera were about the
> same for remaining bugs [1] [...]
> [1] If only they were the *same* bugs.[/color]
.... then we could write them into a standard?
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@c l.cam.ac.uk
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:16:00 +0100, "Christian G."
<dont'replay@an ywhere.geo> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much
>> of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>...no effective CSS standard is implemented
>except of CSS 0.8 or CSS 1.45[/color]
It would be interesting to learn where you have found CSS "standards"
with version numbers 0.8 and 1.45 ?
[color=blue]
>Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
>misplaced design is shown: shame.[/color]
I don't understand what you mean by that ?
[color=blue]
>Developing Liquid / floating design is nearly impossible.[/color]
And you are sure that it is not you that might do good with a "brush up"
of your own CSS knowledge ?
[...]
[color=blue]
>FF is not the browser i expected: deinstalled.[/color]
I doubt that the gecko version used in FF differs much from the one used
in Mozilla, hence CSS based rendering should be just about the same
between the two, and it is as far as I have seen.
--
Rex
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
*Jón Fairbairn* <jon.fairbairn@ cl.cam.ac.uk>:[color=blue]
> Chris Morris <c.i.morris@dur ham.ac.uk> writes:
>[color=green]
>> I'd say recent Gecko and recent Opera were about the same for remaining
>> bugs [1] [...]
>> [1] If only they were the *same* bugs.[/color]
>
> ... then we could write them into a standard?[/color]
It's called CSS 2.1.
--
"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.
By definition, there are already enough people to do that."
G. H. Hardy
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
Mark Tranchant <mark@tranchant .plus.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>sure, there are some CSS problems remaining in
>FF, but far fewer than in most other browsers. Fluid design is easy.
>
>Can you provide specific examples?[/color]
I'm not familiar with the way Gecko is developed, but there doesn't
appear to be any interest in increasing support for css 2, some of my
pet omissions:
inline-table (css 2.0)
outline (css 2.0)
run-in headers (css 2.0)
counters (css 2.0)
inline-block (css 2.1)
css 2.0 was published as a recommendation more than 6 years ago.
The Mozillians seem to be more interested in adding -moz proprietary css
extensions.
And of the approx 6 css bugs I submitted about 2 years ago, not one has
been fixed (yes they were all confirmed as genuine bugs). I've stopped
submitting bugs as a result, it seems pointless.
--
Spartanicus
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
[color=blue]
> It would be interesting to learn where you have found CSS "standards"
> with version numbers 0.8 and 1.45 ?[/color]
means... no standards. </cynism>
[color=blue][color=green]
> >Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
> >misplaced design is shown: shame.[/color]
>
> I don't understand what you mean by that ?[/color]
Try validating a page with option "Show Source". : FF renders the table
with source code improperly. Table rendering is an absolute basic.
IMHO thats a shame. Have the guys from FF dev team checked their own
product against a page known as valid?
Or have validating their own website:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ically%29&ss=1 ?
In times grumbling about IE with lacks of security and missed CSS 2
ability any new browser released have to be better or die.
Since NS 4 i'm waiting for a product meets w3c standards. Obviously
marketing departements are more dominant than programmers.
Cross browser compatibility takes a lot of time and money. Not all of my
clients understand this and are willing to pay for it. And i don't want
to support IE only.
All this unserviceable browsers decelerating pogressing, wasting time,
money and bandwidth.
We could already design on a different level.
Every time the same ....
Christian
*disappointed
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
Christian G. wrote:
[color=blue]
> Try validating a page with option "Show Source". : FF renders the table
> with source code improperly. Table rendering is an absolute basic.[/color]
And if you'd bothereed to check the source, you'd find that this isn't a
table at all.
Example:
The source is a sequence of <pre> elements within a pair of nested
<div>s, styled thus:
#source div {
font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans Mono", monospace;
font-size: smaller;
background: #eee;
border: 1px solid black;
margin: 1em;
}
#source div pre {
margin: 1em;
}
Is your complaint that Firefox holds the <div> to the correct width wrt
the viewport, letting the text spill over, whereas IE expands the <div>
as required to contain the text?
--
Mark.
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
Christian G. wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
>>>misplaced design is shown: shame.[/color][/color]
> Try validating a page with option "Show Source".[/color]
Done
(<http://validator.w3.or g/check?uri=http% 3A%2F%2Fwww.w3. org%2F&charset= %28detect+autom atically%29&doc type=Inline&ss= 1&verbose=1>) .
[color=blue]
> : FF renders the table
> with source code improperly.[/color]
The source code is in a pre element, which is inside a div. No table.
What is misplaced?
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
*Johannes Koch* <koch@w3develop ment.de>:[color=blue]
> Christian G. wrote:
>[color=green]
>> FF renders the table with source code improperly.[/color]
>
> The source code is in a pre element, which is inside a div. No table.[/color]
Well, actually another use-case for 'pre-wrap'.
--
"Right way turning, Listen we are learning.
Head's full of noise, Chicken's got no choice.
Heads are rollin', Chicken blood is stolen.
The rest of the chicken wants a picke-nicken" Guano Apes - We use the Pain
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:17:48 +0100, "Christian G."
<dont'replay@an ywhere.geo> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> It would be interesting to learn where you have found CSS "standards"
>> with version numbers 0.8 and 1.45 ?[/color]
>means... no standards. </cynism>[/color]
Not that easy to get, given the rest of your input.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
>> >misplaced design is shown: shame.[/color]
>> I don't understand what you mean by that ?[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Try validating a page with option "Show Source".
>FF renders the table with source code improperly.[/color]
Well, it's not a table based presentation of course and if an
overflowing PRE in DIV presentation bothers you, by all means go on to
make your view port a bit wider. It's not always an "error in reception"
you know.
Try this one, it might be easier for you to handle ;-)
[color=blue]
>Table rendering is an absolute basic.[/color]
For tabular data yes; for layout? Please expand your knowledge base.
[color=blue]
>IMHO thats a shame.[/color]
You are entitled to your opinion of course.
[color=blue]
>Have the guys from FF dev team checked their own product
>against a page known as valid?[/color]
I'm pretty sure they have, more often than required even.
[...]
[color=blue]
>Since NS 4 i'm waiting for a product meets w3c standards.[/color]
Yea, and I want to jump around on the surface of the moon before I put
my nose in the air for good. We might be looking at the same time frame
for these two events.
Still it's not fair for any one to "grumble" about a development work
that has involved so many unpaid volunteers around the world and
eventually produced a whole slew of freely available products that all
of them have the best capacity today, and potential to become even more
in the future.
The correct response should have been to join the development team,
check in some new code that solves just your problem, let it be
evaluated for quality and further inclusion in distribution.
If you don't want to join in, fine, but accept what you get from those
who are there then. It will still be the best compromise there is.
[color=blue]
>Cross browser compatibility takes a lot of time and money.[/color]
Agreed; but it would be far fetched to blame the crowd of developers
around Gecko for that. The real ballast of the www is held by M$.
[color=blue]
>Not all of my clients understand this and are willing to pay for it.[/color]
Give them an NS4x compliant table setup then, by some reason most of
that shit still "works" to some acceptable level in today's browsers
too.
If your clients money is what you want first hand, forget about client
education and go on to set up that "glossy brochure" that makes him
happy.
[color=blue]
>And i don't want to support IE only.[/color]
You don't have to. The Gecko base of browsers are sometimes better on
"IE bug compatibility" than IE itself.
[...]
[color=blue]
>We could already design on a different level.[/color]
Hmm, the www is about making information available and fully accessible
first of all, a nice presentation is an optional, but not required,
bonus.
Most people don't understand that but do expect the www to be just
another TV-ad setup. Who shall we blame for that part of misleading?
--
Rex
Comment
-
Re: mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??
In article
<erfpq0t3h4ds4v bhun5su9nuelpd2 imgt4@news.spar tanicus.utvinte rnet.ie>,
Spartanicus <me@privacy.net > wrote:
[color=blue]
> The Mozillians seem to be more interested in adding -moz proprietary css
> extensions.[/color]
Lately, the -moz-* properties have been experimental implementations of
CSS3 properties. Experimenting without the vendor prefix would poison
the Web for CSS3.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Comment
Comment