Will MS be less evil now?

java-programmer, Will MS be less evil now? I don't understand Gates. If he wants to do good deeds and be a
philanthropist, why limit such good deeds to healthcare and
education? Why not also do a good deed in the computer
industry? In this industry he is known less for his innovations
than for tactics such as sabotaging Java and cutting off
Netscape's air supply. He has done the industry and consumers
immeasurable harm, for example, by freezing the development
of web browsers. Here's an idea for Gates: Unfreeze the web
browser. Take web browsing to the next level. Start by
implementing SVG, the W3 standard for vector graphics, in IE.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:email***@***.com...
>
> Here's an idea for Gates: Unfreeze the web
> browser. Take web browsing to the next level. Start by
> implementing SVG, the W3 standard for vector graphics, in IE.

I recommend Microsoft instead starts by implementing HTML, the W3
standard for hyper text, in IE.

- Oliver

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<email***@***.com>
wrote
on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:53:51 GMT
<P%xlg.57468$771.36555@edtnps89>:
> <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:email***@***.com...
>>
>> Here's an idea for Gates: Unfreeze the web
>> browser. Take web browsing to the next level. Start by
>> implementing SVG, the W3 standard for vector graphics, in IE.
>
> I recommend Microsoft instead starts by implementing HTML, the W3
> standard for hyper text, in IE.
>
> - Oliver
>

Erm...what violations of the HTML specification is IE offering?

Note: I'm asking regarding just the HTML spec.
The CSS1/2/2.1/3 stuff is another thing, but Microsoft
probably should fix those too. :-) And then there's
the PNG transparency issue, but that's not part of HTML
(though it is a standard -- RFC2083 -- and is referenced
by either <IMG> or <OBJECT>).

(Since this is not Java-related, moving subthread to cola.)

--
#191, email***@***.com
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? The Ghost In The Machine <email***@***.com> wrote:
> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > I recommend Microsoft instead starts by implementing HTML, the W3
> > standard for hyper text, in IE.
>
> Erm...what violations of the HTML specification is IE offering?
[ snip ]
> (Since this is not Java-related, moving subthread to cola.)

Erm... why?

Wouldn't ciwah be infinitely more appropriate that a linux NG for HTML
topics?

Or if you mean the anti-MS sentiment, why not redirect it somewhere
it's actually *ON* topic, like alt.microsoft.sucks. Maybe the linux
trolls like trash-talking and mudslinging, but that doesn't make it
on-topic, and I hardly think they're short of anti-MS trash to talk.

Or am I missing something?

Tim Hammerquist

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now?
"The Ghost In The Machine" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong
> <email***@***.com>
> wrote
> on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:53:51 GMT
>>
>> I recommend Microsoft instead starts by implementing HTML, the W3
>> standard for hyper text, in IE.
>>
>>
>
> Erm...what violations of the HTML specification is IE offering?
>
> Note: I'm asking regarding just the HTML spec.
> The CSS1/2/2.1/3 stuff is another thing, but Microsoft
> probably should fix those too. :-) And then there's
> the PNG transparency issue, but that's not part of HTML
> (though it is a standard -- RFC2083 -- and is referenced
> by either <IMG> or <OBJECT>).

Right, IE is pretty well known for their CSS bugs, and less known for their
HTML ones. Last I checked (today, IE Version
6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519), IE doesn't support the <abbr> tag
to indicate abbreviations. Here's the HTML code I used to test (W3 tells me
it's valid):

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head><title>test</title></head>
<body>
non abbrev <abbr title="Fear Uncertainty Doubt">FUD</abbr> non abbrev
span
</body>
</html>

The is there to prove that the "title" attribute is recognized by IE.
If you mouse-over the text "span", you'll see the tooltip "span", but if you
mouse-over "FUD", you won't see the tooltip "Fear Uncertainty Doubt".

When I said "implement HTML", I really meant "Implement HTML, XHTML, CSS and
related technologies". In more general terms, MS should fix the features
already present in IE, as opposed to introducing new features (such as SVG
support, which can be had via plugins from Adobe anyway, for example)

I just thought it'd be more inflammatory if I said "HTML" instead of "HTML,
XHTML, CSS, etc.".

>
> (Since this is not Java-related, moving subthread to cola.)

[moved back; apologies to those who are offended by "offtopic" posts, but I
don't read COLA, and I'd like to see replies to this thread. clja seems to
be pretty topic-tolerant anyways.]

- Oliver

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:31:50 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:

> The is there to prove that the "title" attribute is recognized by IE.
> If you mouse-over the text "span", you'll see the tooltip "span", but if you
> mouse-over "FUD", you won't see the tooltip "Fear Uncertainty Doubt".

Actually, the abbr tag is not defined as to how it should be handled by
user agents. Ignoring it, effectively just as standards compliant as
showing a tooltip. This is, largely, for semantic and structural markup.
You can use CSS to markup <abbr> tags however you like.

From the w3:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.2.1

"The presentation of phrase elements depends on the user agent."

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now?
"Erik Funkenbusch" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:11k1e3vid4e5d$email***@***.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:31:50 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> The is there to prove that the "title" attribute is recognized by
>> IE.
>> If you mouse-over the text "span", you'll see the tooltip "span", but if
>> you
>> mouse-over "FUD", you won't see the tooltip "Fear Uncertainty Doubt".
>
> Actually, the abbr tag is not defined as to how it should be handled by
> user agents. Ignoring it, effectively just as standards compliant as
> showing a tooltip. This is, largely, for semantic and structural markup.
> You can use CSS to markup <abbr> tags however you like.
>
[...]

But from http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#adef-title

<quote>
Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of
ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the title as a "tool
tip" (a short message that appears when the pointing device pauses over an
object). Audio user agents may speak the title information in a similar
context. For example, setting the attribute on a link allows user agents
(visual and non-visual) to tell users about the nature of the linked
resource:
</quote>

I'm basically saying that IE's HTML parser has not implemented the
<abbr> tag, and so it ignores it completely. And I'm saying that my proof
that IE has not implemented the <abbr> tag is that IE has implemented the
"title" attribute, and the "title" attribute has a known rendering on IE (a
tooltip), but this rendering doesn't occur when the title attribute is
applied to the <abbr> tag. My proof that IE has implemented the "title"
attribute was the inclusion of the tag.

If that isn't evidence enough for you, see
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

<quote>
In addition we've added support [to IE7] for the following

* HTML 4.01 ABBR tag
</quote>

- Oliver

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:13:30 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:

> I'm basically saying that IE's HTML parser has not implemented the
> <abbr> tag, and so it ignores it completely. And I'm saying that my proof
> that IE has not implemented the <abbr> tag is that IE has implemented the
> "title" attribute, and the "title" attribute has a known rendering on IE (a
> tooltip), but this rendering doesn't occur when the title attribute is
> applied to the <abbr> tag. My proof that IE has implemented the "title"
> attribute was the inclusion of the tag.

Right, I'm just saying that there is no standard defined way to deal with
this tag, as such doing nothing is just as valid as doing something.
Further, CSS does apply to such tags so IE doesn't completely ignore it.

It doesn't, however, show the title as a tooltip, which is typical behavior
for a GUI browser.

> If that isn't evidence enough for you, see
> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
>
> <quote>
> In addition we've added support [to IE7] for the following
>
> * HTML 4.01 ABBR tag
> </quote>

Right, they added support for displaying the abbr as a tooltip, like other
common browsers. But, since this is not required functionality, claiming
that not supporting this is violating the W3 spec is wrong.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<email***@***.com>
wrote
on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:47:27 -0500
<11k1e3vid4e5d$email***@***.com>:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:31:50 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> The is there to prove that the "title" attribute is recognized by IE.
>> If you mouse-over the text "span", you'll see the tooltip "span", but if you
>> mouse-over "FUD", you won't see the tooltip "Fear Uncertainty Doubt".
>
> Actually, the abbr tag is not defined as to how it should be handled by
> user agents. Ignoring it, effectively just as standards compliant as
> showing a tooltip. This is, largely, for semantic and structural markup.
> You can use CSS to markup <abbr> tags however you like.
>
> From the w3:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.2.1
>
> "The presentation of phrase elements depends on the user agent."

He's right; this is a non-implementation as opposed to a
mis-implementation.

--
#191, email***@***.com
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<email***@***.com>
wrote
on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:48:52 -0500
<email***@***.com>:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:13:30 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> I'm basically saying that IE's HTML parser has not implemented the
>> <abbr> tag, and so it ignores it completely. And I'm saying that my proof
>> that IE has not implemented the <abbr> tag is that IE has implemented the
>> "title" attribute, and the "title" attribute has a known rendering on IE (a
>> tooltip), but this rendering doesn't occur when the title attribute is
>> applied to the <abbr> tag. My proof that IE has implemented the "title"
>> attribute was the inclusion of the tag.
>
> Right, I'm just saying that there is no standard defined way to deal with
> this tag, as such doing nothing is just as valid as doing something.
> Further, CSS does apply to such tags so IE doesn't completely ignore it.
>
> It doesn't, however, show the title as a tooltip, which is typical behavior
> for a GUI browser.

It doesn't have to; see below.

>
>> If that isn't evidence enough for you, see
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
>>
>> <quote>
>> In addition we've added support [to IE7] for the following
>>
>> * HTML 4.01 ABBR tag
>> </quote>
>
> Right, they added support for displaying the abbr as a tooltip, like other
> common browsers. But, since this is not required functionality, claiming
> that not supporting this is violating the W3 spec is wrong.

7.4.3 of the HTML 4.0.1 is clear that, for those tags that support it
(and are supported in turn):

Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a
variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display
the title as a "tool tip" (a short message that appears when the
pointing device pauses over an object). Audio user agents may speak
the title information in a similar context.

9.2 is not at all clear as to whether these tags are required,
suggested, optional, or other. No doubt conforming browsers could in
theory ignore them all; therefore IE conforms.

This is not the best of behaviors, but is not a violation.

--
#191, email***@***.com
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now?
"Erik Funkenbusch" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:13:30 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> I'm basically saying that IE's HTML parser has not implemented the
>> <abbr> tag, and so it ignores it completely.
[...]
> Further, CSS does apply to such tags so IE doesn't completely ignore it.

In my tests, CSS does not apply to the tag <abbr> tag. Here's my HTML
code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>test</title>
<style type="text/css">
abbr {
background: #FF0000;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
non abbrev <abbr title="Fear Uncertainty Doubt">FUD</abbr> non abbrev
span
</body>
</html>

FireFox correctly renders the FUD on a red background, whereas IE use the
default background (white in my case).

- Oliver

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<email***@***.com>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:57:40 GMT
<o9Tlg.65409$I61.52785@clgrps13>:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:13:30 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>>> I'm basically saying that IE's HTML parser has not implemented the
>>> <abbr> tag, and so it ignores it completely.
> [...]
>> Further, CSS does apply to such tags so IE doesn't completely ignore it.
>
> In my tests, CSS does not apply to the tag <abbr> tag. Here's my HTML
> code:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html>
> <head>
> <title>test</title>
> <style type="text/css">
> abbr {
> background: #FF0000;
> }
> </style>
> </head>
> <body>
> non abbrev <abbr title="Fear Uncertainty Doubt">FUD</abbr> non abbrev
> span
> </body>
> </html>
>
> FireFox correctly renders the FUD on a red background, whereas IE use the
> default background (white in my case).
>
> - Oliver
>

The HTML 4.01 spec is maddeningly unclear on whether
this is a violation or not. Basically, the tag is being
parsed then ignored, much like <FOO> or <BELCH> would be.
Note that HTML 3.2 didn't have <ABBR>.

There is nothing I see in Section 9 that says "thou shalt
implement these tags". Of course, if one does implement
the tags one must implement them properly, e.g., blah
blah would be slightly ridiculous, and requiring 
to have an end tag would break a lot of non-XML web pages.

--
#191, email***@***.com
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now?
"The Ghost In The Machine" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong
> <email***@***.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:57:40 GMT
> <o9Tlg.65409$I61.52785@clgrps13>:
>>
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>> news:email***@***.com...
>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:13:30 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm basically saying that IE's HTML parser has not implemented the
>>>> <abbr> tag, and so it ignores it completely.
>> [...]
>>> Further, CSS does apply to such tags so IE doesn't completely ignore it.
>>
>> In my tests, CSS does not apply to the tag <abbr> tag. Here's my HTML
>> code:
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
>> <html>
>> <head>
>> <title>test</title>
>> <style type="text/css">
>> abbr {
>> background: #FF0000;
>> }
>> </style>
>> </head>
>> <body>
>> non abbrev <abbr title="Fear Uncertainty Doubt">FUD</abbr> non abbrev
>> span
>> </body>
>> </html>
>>
>> FireFox correctly renders the FUD on a red background, whereas IE use the
>> default background (white in my case).
>>
>> - Oliver
>>
>
> The HTML 4.01 spec is maddeningly unclear on whether
> this is a violation or not. Basically, the tag is being
> parsed then ignored, much like <FOO> or <BELCH> would be.
> Note that HTML 3.2 didn't have <ABBR>.

Okay, so IE might be correctly implementing HTML 3.2, but it's not
implementing HTML 4.01. So let me amend my request to "Instead of
implementing SVG, let's have IE implement HTML 4.01 first. Then maybe XHTML
1.0, and then 1.1 and 2.0. And *THEN* we can worry about fancy new features
like SVG".

I don't think you can say you implement 4.01 if you decide to not
implement certain tags which are defined within 4.01. Otherwise, I could say
that NotePad is an HTML 4.01 compliant browser, except that it ignores all
tags (such as <html>, <body>, <head>, etc.)

>
> There is nothing I see in Section 9 that says "thou shalt
> implement these tags".

I don't think there's anything anywhere in the HTML specs that says it's
optional to implement the tags. I.e. I think it's implied that to be
conformant to the spec, you have to implement everything the spec says,
unless indicated otherwise.

> Of course, if one does implement
> the tags one must implement them properly, e.g., blah
> blah would be slightly ridiculous, and requiring 
> to have an end tag would break a lot of non-XML web pages.

Luckily HTML is not nescessarily XML, and HTML does allow for non-closed
tags. One of the big reasons to move to XHTML is that it IS XML, meaning the
tags are now case sensitive, and every opening tag must be closed, etc. The
hope is that this will force a lot of authors to write cleaner pages, which
means less undefined behaviour for browsers which encounter malformed pages.

As for the blah bla thing, each tag in HTML has a DTD defining
what kind of children it can have, and I believe may not have
character-data as children, so that construct would be illegal in HTML
anyway.

- Oliver

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<email***@***.com>
wrote
on Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:07:36 GMT
<Iocmg.73825$JX1.14628@edtnps82>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong
>> <email***@***.com>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:57:40 GMT
>> <o9Tlg.65409$I61.52785@clgrps13>:
>>>
>>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>>> news:email***@***.com...
>>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:13:30 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm basically saying that IE's HTML parser has not implemented the
>>>>> <abbr> tag, and so it ignores it completely.
>>> [...]
>>>> Further, CSS does apply to such tags so IE doesn't completely ignore it.
>>>
>>> In my tests, CSS does not apply to the tag <abbr> tag. Here's my HTML
>>> code:
>>>
>>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
>>> <html>
>>> <head>
>>> <title>test</title>
>>> <style type="text/css">
>>> abbr {
>>> background: #FF0000;
>>> }
>>> </style>
>>> </head>
>>> <body>
>>> non abbrev <abbr title="Fear Uncertainty Doubt">FUD</abbr> non abbrev
>>> span
>>> </body>
>>> </html>
>>>
>>> FireFox correctly renders the FUD on a red background, whereas IE use the
>>> default background (white in my case).
>>>
>>> - Oliver
>>>
>>
>> The HTML 4.01 spec is maddeningly unclear on whether
>> this is a violation or not. Basically, the tag is being
>> parsed then ignored, much like <FOO> or <BELCH> would be.
>> Note that HTML 3.2 didn't have <ABBR>.
>
> Okay, so IE might be correctly implementing HTML 3.2,

Probably the right time frame. I'd have to look. I remember the Arena
browser; crude but implemented a precursor to what eventually turned
into MathML.

> but it's not implementing HTML 4.01. So let me amend my
> request to "Instead of implementing SVG, let's have IE
> implement HTML 4.01 first. Then maybe XHTML
> 1.0, and then 1.1 and 2.0. And *THEN* we can worry about
> fancy new features like SVG".

New? SVG's been around since 1999, though it took a bit of doing
and was eventually standardized (1.0) in mid-2000. We are now at 1.1,
and 1.2 is in the works.

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/History
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/

I suppose compared to rocks, electric power, computers, and browsers
it's new. :-) Firefox seems to like it, for example, in 1.5.

>
> I don't think you can say you implement 4.01 if you decide to not
> implement certain tags which are defined within 4.01. Otherwise, I could say
> that NotePad is an HTML 4.01 compliant browser, except that it ignores all
> tags (such as <html>, <body>, <head>, etc.)

Notepad does not ignore the tags; it doesn't parse them. It just
renders them as text, which it's not supposed to do as a
RFC2616-compliant user agent. :-) Also, it doesn't do fetches
using HTTP.

>
>>
>> There is nothing I see in Section 9 that says "thou shalt
>> implement these tags".
>
> I don't think there's anything anywhere in the HTML specs that says it's
> optional to implement the tags. I.e. I think it's implied that to be
> conformant to the spec, you have to implement everything the spec says,
> unless indicated otherwise.

Hmm...I'm inclined to agree, actually; I just don't know at this point.

>
>> Of course, if one does implement
>> the tags one must implement them properly, e.g., blah
>> blah would be slightly ridiculous, and requiring 
>> to have an end tag would break a lot of non-XML web pages.
>
> Luckily HTML is not nescessarily XML, and HTML does allow for non-closed
> tags. One of the big reasons to move to XHTML is that it IS XML, meaning the
> tags are now case sensitive, and every opening tag must be closed, etc. The
> hope is that this will force a lot of authors to write cleaner pages, which
> means less undefined behaviour for browsers which encounter malformed pages.
>
> As for the blah bla thing, each tag in HTML has a DTD defining
> what kind of children it can have, and I believe may not have
> character-data as children, so that construct would be illegal in HTML
> anyway.
>

Exactly my point; if a browser chooses to implement BR, it must do so
correctly.

Since IE doesn't even bother to implement ABBR, it's far from clear how
correct it is. However, since it skips it (correctly, AFAICT), it's far
from clear how *incorrect* it is. Ow, my brain....

> - Oliver
>

--
#191, email***@***.com
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now?
"The Ghost In The Machine" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong
> <email***@***.com>
> wrote
> on Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:07:36 GMT
> <Iocmg.73825$JX1.14628@edtnps82>:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <email***@***.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:email***@***.com...
>>> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, Oliver Wong
>>> <email***@***.com>
>>> wrote
>>> on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:57:40 GMT
>>> <o9Tlg.65409$I61.52785@clgrps13>:
>>>>
>>>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:email***@***.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:13:30 GMT, Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm basically saying that IE's HTML parser has not implemented
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> <abbr> tag, and so it ignores it completely.
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Further, CSS does apply to such tags so IE doesn't completely ignore
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> In my tests, CSS does not apply to the tag <abbr> tag. Here's my
>>>> HTML
>>>> code:
>>>>
>>>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>>>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
>>>> <html>
>>>> <head>
>>>> <title>test</title>
>>>> <style type="text/css">
>>>> abbr {
>>>> background: #FF0000;
>>>> }
>>>> </style>
>>>> </head>
>>>> <body>
>>>> non abbrev <abbr title="Fear Uncertainty Doubt">FUD</abbr> non
>>>> abbrev
>>>> span
>>>> </body>
>>>> </html>
>>>>
>>>> FireFox correctly renders the FUD on a red background, whereas IE use
>>>> the
>>>> default background (white in my case).
>>>>
>>>> - Oliver
>>>>
>>>
>>> The HTML 4.01 spec is maddeningly unclear on whether
>>> this is a violation or not. Basically, the tag is being
>>> parsed then ignored, much like <FOO> or <BELCH> would be.
>>> Note that HTML 3.2 didn't have <ABBR>.
>>
>> Okay, so IE might be correctly implementing HTML 3.2,
>
> Probably the right time frame. I'd have to look. I remember the Arena
> browser; crude but implemented a precursor to what eventually turned
> into MathML.
>
>> but it's not implementing HTML 4.01. So let me amend my
>> request to "Instead of implementing SVG, let's have IE
>> implement HTML 4.01 first. Then maybe XHTML
>> 1.0, and then 1.1 and 2.0. And *THEN* we can worry about
>> fancy new features like SVG".
>
> New? SVG's been around since 1999, though it took a bit of doing
> and was eventually standardized (1.0) in mid-2000. We are now at 1.1,
> and 1.2 is in the works.
>
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/History
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/
>
> I suppose compared to rocks, electric power, computers, and browsers
> it's new. :-) Firefox seems to like it, for example, in 1.5.

More significantly, it's new compared to HTML 4. But in retrospect, I
guess the issue is less about newness, and more about what is and isn't core
functionality. A web browser which handles SVG correctly, but HTML
incorrectly is as absurd as a spreadsheet program with a working built in
flight simulator, but the inability to save data to disk without corruption.

>
>>
>> I don't think you can say you implement 4.01 if you decide to not
>> implement certain tags which are defined within 4.01. Otherwise, I could
>> say
>> that NotePad is an HTML 4.01 compliant browser, except that it ignores
>> all
>> tags (such as <html>, <body>, <head>, etc.)
>
>
> Notepad does not ignore the tags; it doesn't parse them. It just
> renders them as text, which it's not supposed to do as a
> RFC2616-compliant user agent. :-) Also, it doesn't do fetches
> using HTTP.

You're right about the not ignoring tags. How about if I wrote a quick
Java program which always draws a blank frame? That'd be ignoring all tags,
right? As for the HTTP fetches, whether or not they actually occur is just
an implementation detail, right? As long as the web browser can display the
page, who cares HOW it actually gets those pages? This always-blank
application is "correctly" displaying the HTML document (by ignoring all
tags), and it does so while optimizing out the network interactivity (a
typical bottleneck in most other browsers).

>>> There is nothing I see in Section 9 that says "thou shalt
>>> implement these tags".
>>
>> I don't think there's anything anywhere in the HTML specs that says
>> it's
>> optional to implement the tags. I.e. I think it's implied that to be
>> conformant to the spec, you have to implement everything the spec says,
>> unless indicated otherwise.
>
> Hmm...I'm inclined to agree, actually; I just don't know at this point.
>
>>
>>> Of course, if one does implement
>>> the tags one must implement them properly, e.g., blah
>>> blah would be slightly ridiculous, and requiring 
>>> to have an end tag would break a lot of non-XML web pages.
>>
>> Luckily HTML is not nescessarily XML, and HTML does allow for
>> non-closed
>> tags. One of the big reasons to move to XHTML is that it IS XML, meaning
>> the
>> tags are now case sensitive, and every opening tag must be closed, etc.
>> The
>> hope is that this will force a lot of authors to write cleaner pages,
>> which
>> means less undefined behaviour for browsers which encounter malformed
>> pages.
>>
>> As for the blah bla thing, each tag in HTML has a DTD
>> defining
>> what kind of children it can have, and I believe may not have
>> character-data as children, so that construct would be illegal in HTML
>> anyway.
>>
>
> Exactly my point; if a browser chooses to implement BR, it must do so
> correctly.

I think if a browser chooses NOT to implement BR, then it is not
implementing the HTML specs which define that BR tag (which is all of
them?).

>
> Since IE doesn't even bother to implement ABBR, it's far from clear how
> correct it is. However, since it skips it (correctly, AFAICT), it's far
> from clear how *incorrect* it is. Ow, my brain....

It is incorrectly implementing HTML 4.01, because HTML 4.01 requires the
implementation of the ABBR tag, which IE does not do. "Skipping" ABBR is not
a "correct" behaviour for an HTML 4.01 compliant browser, I think.

The confusion, I think, comes from the fact that there isn't a
straightforward or direct way of checking whether a browser implements a tag
short of looking at the source code. I had to demonstrate by showing that
CSS doesn't work properly on the ABBR tag. Someone might then say "But
that's a CSS bug, not an HTML bug", in which case I have to show that CSS
works in all situations EXCEPT for the ABBR tag, showing that the problem is
indeed with ABBR, and not with CSS.

- Oliver

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? email***@***.com wrote:
> I don't understand Gates. If he wants to do good deeds and be a
> philanthropist, why limit such good deeds to healthcare and
> education? Why not also do a good deed in the computer
> industry? In this industry he is known less for his innovations
> than for tactics such as sabotaging Java and cutting off
> Netscape's air supply. He has done the industry and consumers
> immeasurable harm, for example, by freezing the development
> of web browsers. Here's an idea for Gates: Unfreeze the web
> browser. Take web browsing to the next level. Start by
> implementing SVG, the W3 standard for vector graphics, in IE.

Heck, how about implementing XHTML, the W3 standard for the bloody web
itself?

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? In comp.lang.java.advocacy, John W. Kennedy
<email***@***.com>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:48:29 -0400
<2CBmg.80$email***@***.com>:
> email***@***.com wrote:
>> I don't understand Gates. If he wants to do good deeds and be a
>> philanthropist, why limit such good deeds to healthcare and
>> education? Why not also do a good deed in the computer
>> industry? In this industry he is known less for his innovations
>> than for tactics such as sabotaging Java and cutting off
>> Netscape's air supply. He has done the industry and consumers
>> immeasurable harm, for example, by freezing the development
>> of web browsers. Here's an idea for Gates: Unfreeze the web
>> browser. Take web browsing to the next level. Start by
>> implementing SVG, the W3 standard for vector graphics, in IE.
>
> Heck, how about implementing XHTML, the W3 standard for the bloody web
> itself?
>

Which version? XHTML 1.1 is now modular. Java's JEditorPane can't
handle XHTML all that well, either.

Also, SVG is only one of many solutions for displaying
images. Java's JEditorPane can embed arbitrary
java.awt.Component widgets (locally defined). This
has obvious ramifications if anyone cares about what might be
called "Java plugins" (although Java Applets are already
a solution; strangely, they don't work in a JEditorPane).

Of course the <APPLET> tag is screwed up six ways from Sunday, since it
was deprecated in HTML4.01 (or HTML4); the new Object tags apparently
require an IE-specific test (which to Mozzie looks like a comment).
Yecch. The good news: Mozilla understands this form too.

--
#191, email***@***.com
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, John W. Kennedy
> <email***@***.com>
> wrote
>> Heck, how about implementing XHTML, the W3 standard for the bloody web
>> itself?

> Which version?

Any version. IE6 and IE7 do not display any version of XHTML /at all/.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now? In comp.lang.java.advocacy, John W. Kennedy
<email***@***.com>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:04:05 -0400
<cBDmg.658$email***@***.com>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, John W. Kennedy
>> <email***@***.com>
>> wrote
>>> Heck, how about implementing XHTML, the W3 standard for the bloody web
>>> itself?
>
>> Which version?
>
> Any version. IE6 and IE7 do not display any version of XHTML /at all/.
>

Heh...not quite what I was aiming for but a *very* good point. :-)

--
#191, email***@***.com
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

java-programmer >> Will MS be less evil now?
"John W. Kennedy" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:cBDmg.658$email***@***.com...
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In comp.lang.java.advocacy, John W. Kennedy
>> <email***@***.com>
>> wrote
>>> Heck, how about implementing XHTML, the W3 standard for the bloody web
>>> itself?
>
>> Which version?
>
> Any version. IE6 and IE7 do not display any version of XHTML /at all/.
>

Don't know what you mean by "not display[ing] any version of XHTML /at
all/", but my personal blog is written in (almost[*]) pure XHTML, an it
almost looks the same in IE as it does in FireFox (some CSS tags don't work,
but that's about it).

- Oliver

[*]: Because of some faulty PHP scripting, I sometimes emit "&" when I
should have emitted "&", particularly in URLs that point offsite.