mozilla firefox CSS coverage ??

where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much
of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.

where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much
of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.

I tried FF for weeks and the output is: no effective CSS standard is
implemented except of CSS 0.8 or CSS 1.45.
Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
misplaced design is shown: shame.

Developing Liquid / floating design is nearly impossible.
Usermanagement and java support on windows platform ... like CSS
implementation.
FF is not the browser i expected: deinstalled.

CG.

*FF 1.0 is a hype we have to stand. Waiting for a better one.

Christian G. wrote:

where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much
of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.

I tried FF for weeks and the output is: no effective CSS standard is
implemented except of CSS 0.8 or CSS 1.45.
Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
misplaced design is shown: shame.

Developing Liquid / floating design is nearly impossible.
Usermanagement and java support on windows platform ... like CSS
implementation.
FF is not the browser i expected: deinstalled.

....and using what instead?

I hope this is a troll - sure, there are some CSS problems remaining in
FF, but far fewer than in most other browsers. Fluid design is easy.

Can you provide specific examples?

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:16:00 +0100, "Christian G."
<dont'replay (AT) anywhere (DOT) geo> wrote:

where is there a source which shows which css standard, and how much
of that standard, is implemented in firefox's (1.0) engine? t.i.a.

...no effective CSS standard is implemented
except of CSS 0.8 or CSS 1.45

It would be interesting to learn where you have found CSS "standards"
with version numbers 0.8 and 1.45 ?

Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
misplaced design is shown: shame.

I don't understand what you mean by that ?

Developing Liquid / floating design is nearly impossible.

And you are sure that it is not you that might do good with a "brush up"
of your own CSS knowledge ?

[...]

FF is not the browser i expected: deinstalled.

I doubt that the gecko version used in FF differs much from the one used
in Mozilla, hence CSS based rendering should be just about the same
between the two, and it is as far as I have seen.

--
Rex

Mark Tranchant <mark (AT) tranchant (DOT) plus.com> writes:

Christian G. wrote:
implemented except of CSS 0.8 or CSS 1.45.

I hope this is a troll

The referencing of two nonexistent standards would be a giveaway.

- sure, there are some CSS problems remaining in FF, but far fewer
than in most other browsers. Fluid design is easy.

I don't know. I'd say recent Gecko and recent Opera were about the
same for remaining bugs [1] and KHTML appears to have caught up with
them too.

There's only IE other than that that's made any significant effort to
support CSS, which does lag behind, obviously.

[1] If only they were the *same* bugs.

--
Chris

*Jón Fairbairn* <jon.fairbairn (AT) cl (DOT) cam.ac.uk>:

Chris Morris <c.i.morris (AT) durham (DOT) ac.uk> writes:

I'd say recent Gecko and recent Opera were about the same for remaining
bugs [1] [...]
[1] If only they were the *same* bugs.

... then we could write them into a standard?

It's called CSS*2.1.

--
"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.
By definition, there are already enough people to do that."

G. H. Hardy

Mark Tranchant <mark (AT) tranchant (DOT) plus.com> wrote:

sure, there are some CSS problems remaining in
FF, but far fewer than in most other browsers. Fluid design is easy.

Can you provide specific examples?

I'm not familiar with the way Gecko is developed, but there doesn't
appear to be any interest in increasing support for css 2, some of my
pet omissions:

inline-table (css 2.0)
outline (css 2.0)
run-in headers (css 2.0)
counters (css 2.0)
inline-block (css 2.1)

css 2.0 was published as a recommendation more than 6 years ago.

The Mozillians seem to be more interested in adding -moz proprietary css
extensions.

And of the approx 6 css bugs I submitted about 2 years ago, not one has
been fixed (yes they were all confirmed as genuine bugs). I've stopped
submitting bugs as a result, it seems pointless.

--
Spartanicus

It would be interesting to learn where you have found CSS "standards"
with version numbers 0.8 and 1.45 ?

means... no standards. </cynism>

Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
misplaced design is shown: shame.

I don't understand what you mean by that ?

Try validating a page with option "Show Source". : FF renders the table
with source code improperly. Table rendering is an absolute basic.
IMHO thats a shame. Have the guys from FF dev team checked their own
product against a page known as valid?
Or have validating their own website:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...ically%29&ss=1 ?

In times grumbling about IE with lacks of security and missed CSS 2
ability any new browser released have to be better or die.
Since NS 4 i'm waiting for a product meets w3c standards. Obviously
marketing departements are more dominant than programmers.

Cross browser compatibility takes a lot of time and money. Not all of my
clients understand this and are willing to pay for it. And i don't want
to support IE only.
All this unserviceable browsers decelerating pogressing, wasting time,
money and bandwidth.
We could already design on a different level.

Every time the same ....

Christian
*disappointed

Christian G. wrote:

Try validating a page with option "Show Source". : FF renders the table
with source code improperly. Table rendering is an absolute basic.

And if you'd bothereed to check the source, you'd find that this isn't a
table at all.

Example:

http://tinyurl.com/4or3s

The source is a sequence of <pre> elements within a pair of nested
<div>s, styled thus:

#source div {
font-family: "Bitstream Vera Sans Mono", monospace;
font-size: smaller;
background: #eee;
border: 1px solid black;
margin: 1em;
}
#source div pre {
margin: 1em;
}

Is your complaint that Firefox holds the <div> to the correct width wrt
the viewport, letting the text spill over, whereas IE expands the <div>
as required to contain the text?

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Christian G. wrote:

Requesting http://validator.w3c.org -verbose (any websites) -- a
misplaced design is shown: shame.
Try validating a page with option "Show Source".

Done
(<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F&charset=%28de tect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&verbose= 1>).

: FF renders the table
with source code improperly.

The source code is in a pre element, which is inside a div. No table.

What is misplaced?
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)