Rendering bugs

by **MikeFoster** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:32 am

zcorpan wrote:I think you're misreading the spec. The guess-work is only a hint that UAs can optimize their implementation, but the end result still has to be the same as if they followed the algorithm literally.

Yes I see your point. Then, evidently, Opera and Firefox think it is right to collapse the margin and IE does not.

and wrote:The point I was trying to make is that valid HTML 4.01 Strict can look very much like my initial code.

I don't think it "looks" like it

, but I see now that FF creates the missing head and body elements (Opera doesn't create the head). I've learned quite a bit about HTML5 today. Thank you all for being patient with me.

by **hasather** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:18 am

and wrote:
hasather wrote:Test 12 renders a blue rectangle for me in Opera 9.10 (build 521) on Linux.

Can you confirm that http://html5.ouvaton.org/bugs12.html (or the equivalent http://html5.ouvaton.org/bug2.html) renders correctly also after reload (ctrl-R, F5 or whatever it might be on Linux). The bug corrects itself after resizing or other events that trigger a redraw, which also seems to happen when one presses enter in the address bar.

Yep, renders correctly at first, and also after a reaload.

by **and** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:41 pm

Thanks, hasather.

MikeFoster wrote:I don't think it "looks" like it

Does http://html5.ouvaton.org/valid.html "look" like valid valid HTML 4.01 Strict? (It is: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhtml5.ouvaton.org%2Fvalid.html&ss)

Strictly speaking, a HTML document is not "missing" anything just because tags like <body>, <html> and </p> are not indicated explicitly in the source; there's only one place to put them anyway (in a document conforming to the specification, that is), which has led to their being defined as strictly optional in any (at least reasonably "recent") version of HTML (excluding XHTML, of course).

HTML5 will disallow most of the uncommon constructions illustrated in http://html5.ouvaton.org/valid.html, which means that a random valid HTML5 document, unlike a random valid HTML4 document (or XHTML 1.0 sent as text/html, I should add), is actually likely to be rendered correctly. As for the optional tags and quotes, these will remain optional, so there is no need to remove/add optional items or change one's coding habits.

--
&

by **MikeFoster** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:46 pm

Thanks and, you make a good point

by **hasather** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:48 pm

hasather wrote:Yep, renders correctly at first, and also after a reload.

Just tested it again, and the first time I saw no blue. This didn't happen yesterday.
Gaah, I hate unpredictable bugs.

Rendering bugs

Thanks

Who is online

Who is online