Sent by Big John on 6 January 2003 02:02
Roger Los wrote:
> ~ BTW, IE incorrectly encloses floats even if there is no
> ~ cleared element within the enclosing element. Microsoft sure
> ~ wants to 'help' us, don't they? Adhering to the standards seems to be
> ~ way down the priority list. But they're big and powerful, so
> ~ they get away with it, only obeying the W3C specs when it
> ~ suits them, despite being a W3C member. But I digress...
>
> Of course, the flip side of that is that many of the standards are
> absolutely incomprehensible from a logical standpoint. Something inside
> of something else isn't enclosed by it? That's weak. Not that I want my
> hand held by MS, but the standards writers live in some unfathomable
> universe where logic is about 63rd on the list of things considered.
> Just my opinion, of course. But standards are a real slog to get adopted
> when your average Jill or Joe cannot understand them to save their life.
Actually, I agree with you. It does seem more logical that a float
be enclosed in a containing element, and it sure is confusing to a
great number of people.
But these 'standards writers' you speak of, just who are they?
My understanding is that they are really a large, diverse group,
and the debates that result in the 'standards' are long drawn out
affairs. Since 'simple logic' is such a strong arguing point, it
stands to reason that if such a course is not followed, there must
have been some rather strong arguments for the recommendations that
were agreed upon.
As I say, this opinion is based on assumption, but it's also based
on long study of the specs, which has given me a certain respect
for the people that created those specs.
In regards to the float enclosing question, I am not clear on just
why it's better not to enclose the floats automatically, and would
appriciate a good explaination of same.
However, it still doesn't excuse MS for 'going it alone' on this
issue. Have they ever stated publicly that "We don't agree with
this part of the specs, and so will not support it"? Not that
I'm aware of. I find such behavior on the part of a W3C member
to be very hypocritical, not to mention sneaky.
Big John
=====
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
| Perennial student + Impractical joker + CSS junkie = Big John |
| XXXX <http://users.rraz.net/mc_on_the_rocks/testpage/pie.html> XXXX |
| XXXXXXXXXXXXX <http://users.rraz.net/mc_on_the_rocks/> XXXXXXXXXXXX |
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
