Re: Puzzle

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?iso-8859-
1?q?J=F3n_Fairbairn?= wrote:

I keep reading the definition of CSS2, but am having
difficulty acquiring the precise meaning of certain of the
concepts.

Read CSS21, and errata for CSS2

Anyone care to commit to an answer before looking at <URL:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jf/FloatAndRelative.html >?

404

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?iso-8859-
1?q?J=F3n_Fairbairn?= wrote:

Lauri Raittila <lauri (AT) raittila (DOT) cjb.net> writes:

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Jón Fairbairn wrote:
I keep reading the definition of CSS2, but am having
difficulty acquiring the precise meaning of certain of
the concepts.

Read CSS21,
ie <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ >?

Yup

and errata for CSS2

Yup.

ie <URL: http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates...12-errata.html >?

so I should only need to read CSS21? At least it's a few
So I don't really think it counts as an authority.

Neither has CSS2 errata any authority. But if errata explains what
is wrong in CSS2, you don't need to think it again. Easier than finding
every relelevant parts in CSS spec yourself...

To precisely which (combinations) of these documents (if
any) do the user agents conform?

Depends on how you define "conform". No modern browser conforms them
anyway. Browsers that don't support CSS at all conform specs, as they
don't have CSS bugs and CSS is optional.

404

Whoops! But that should give you a chance to say what should
happen, without looking at what does happen, should it not?

I prefer looking at code in my editor, not in my newsclient. And it is
pain to exaplain how it should work, using english. Much easier to
compare difference...

I can easily imagine how it should be rendered. I would take ages to
describe it, and you still most likely wouldn't understand. One image
is worth 1000 words, as they say.

It should have read <URL:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jf/StyleTes...dRelative.html

Never ever type URL by hand, if you can avoid it. You just make
mistakes...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?=
Fairbairn wrote:

I can easily imagine how it should be rendered. I would take ages to
describe it, and you still most likely wouldn't understand. One image
is worth 1000 words, as they say.

Yes, but what I wanted to avoid was people looking at the
page and back-deriving an explanation from that.

Well, I did know rendering in Gecko, Opera and IE even whitout first
looking at it... That is one reason describtion would have been long...

I never did look it at Gecko, IE or Opera 7.54, and I did describe the
bugs in them, didn't I?

What I'm really interested in is the extent to which CSS is
understood and understandable.

It is quite understandable. After you remember the spec

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>