Was. . . "What about this". . now morphing

Sorry for the long tail on the bottom of this, but the whole prior exchange
is really relevant to the context of this message.

JTP,

I agree with most of you position but need some clarification (please).

You say: ">I think that the failure is to understand that the various browser 
>''quirk'' modes are just like a DTD in reality. It is just that 
>''quirks'' mode encompasses elements and attributes that are not 
>recognized by the W3 standards body."

Let me make an assumption first: MSIE,NN,Opera etc. are going to build
their own versions of 'Quirks Mode' compliance too.

Lets say as example MSIE's allows scrolling text across the screen. NN
*Hates* that and decides not to support it - they choose to include support
for blinking test instead and completely omits any code to render stuff in
scroll tags.

MSIE finds out they did that, and kills anything enclosed in blink tags.

We both (woops - ALL) know that browsers are *supposed to* simply ignore
any code they do not understand or support, not go belly up and leave you
frozen in blue-screen hell. Yea, right. Just like they are working hard on
full CSS support.

Speaking directly to you JTP I'm sure you're an old enough hand to remember
the blink/scroll war I'm talking about. Neither played well with Either's
code in the 2.X and 3.X (even late 3.x into early 4) versions.

My argument is that *if* you stick with W3 ratified code - though it may
render differently based on viewer capabilities - it will not get you in
the middle of some browser manufacturer war. *YOU* won't be the person left
rebooting your machine praying the 86 page proposal you had open in the
background is still in existence after the crash.

In your opinion is this flawed thinking? Be honest, remember I'm not the
thin skinned type JTP (et al).

~Next~

You said: ">Actually, that leap is unfounded. Some browsers, if a certain
DTD is 
>stated in the page, as required by the standards, will display the page 
>using ONLY those elements and attributes as specified by the DTD. If the 
>  DTD is not one that is recognized, then the browser will display the 
>page in what is called ''qwirks'' mode. For instance, it will, in qwirks 
>mode, recognize and use the attributes to the body element for 
>marginwidth, leftmargin, etc, that were defined by MSIE and Netscape to 
>remove margins. The standard is that this is to be done by CSS by 
>setting the margins to a value (such as zero)."

If the document complies with a standard stated in the DTD and ~only~ the
elements supported by that DTD are rendered this is not a bad thing, in my
opinion. I think it may even make the browser application run a millisecond
faster too because it may not be necessary to have such a large "DTD
library" loaded in RAM ;-).

Question: Isn't "Quirks Mode" a new thing? I don't recall ever hearing of
such a thing prior to version 6.X of ~anything~?

"Older" browsers (purportedly) practiced the "if I don't know what it is
I'll ignore it" method of rendering a page? At least conceptually?

In closing (I'll bet you are all ready for that!):

<I said>
>> There are those here who will argue that, but simply pick your source of
>> (official) reference, and see it for yourself.
>> 

You said: ">Yes, I argue because the statement that page display is
ultimately bound 
>up with DTD is incorrect."

JTP my position is that by using ratified code the viewer will suffer no
ill consequences when viewing the page regardless of their
browser/OS/platform. I only feel I must qualify that by saying IF you stay
away from Transitional DTDs.

So I'm saying: Page display and DTD *is* bound up only in that if the
appropriate DTD is chosen and the code complies to that DTD the page will
not "break" anyone's browser - reliably and consistently.

This is fun. Your turn now . . . or anyone else got something to ad?

Da,
Fuzzy.






At 09:50 AM 11/5/01 , jtpolk wrote:
>> for starters . . . a DTD is a *required* element.
>> 
>
>By the standsrds, yes.
>
>> Without it no page will display dependably and/or predictably.
>> 
>
>Actually, that leap is unfounded. Some browsers, if a certain DTD is 
>stated in the page, as required by the standards, will display the page 
>using ONLY those elements and attributes as specified by the DTD. If the 
>  DTD is not one that is recognized, then the browser will display the 
>page in what is called ''qwirks'' mode. For instance, it will, in qwirks 
>mode, recognize and use the attributes to the body element for 
>marginwidth, leftmargin, etc, that were defined by MSIE and Netscape to 
>remove margins. The standard is that this is to be done by CSS by 
>setting the margins to a value (such as zero).
>
>How quirks mode displays the page is documented. And in any case, how 
>the dependability or predictability of the display of a web page is 
>still utterly dependent upon how the browser renders the web page, 
>regardless of whether it uses a Quirks DTD or a W3 standards DTD.
>
>> There are those here who will argue that, but simply pick your source of
>> (official) reference, and see it for yourself.
>> 
>
>Yes, I argue because the statement that page display is ultimately bound 
>up with DTD is incorrect.
>
>I think that the failure is to understand that the various browser 
>''quirk'' modes are just like a DTD in reality. It is just that 
>''quirks'' mode encompasses elements and attributes that are not 
>recognized by the W3 standards body.
[ . . .]
JTP.
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net
I asked Mom if I was a gifted child... she said they certainly wouldn't 
have paid for me.
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA