Content deleted Content added
Voidvector (talk | contribs) |
Tag: |
||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows}}
}}
==Fails To Mention Height==
Although height is assumed to be in the same issue as width with this box model discussion, it is not discussed in the diagram that goes with the article. This might confuse newbies. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Volomike|Volomike]] ([[User talk:Volomike|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Volomike|contribs]]) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==From bad to worse...then, to 'amazingly stupid'==
Line 308 ⟶ 312:
You do realize that Microsoft support both box models since version 6, right? The fact that they continue to support their flawed box model is not unusual. Maintaining backward compatibility is a big issue for Microsoft. They always strive to maintain backward compatibility. [[Raymond Chen]] writes about this all the time. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|AlistairMcMillan]] 18:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of you are missing the point. Microsoft and the W3C released separate, documented standards for defining the visual properties of an element. Just because one became more accepted as a standard does not immediately place the other one as "bug" in the traditional sense. That's like saying that a Corel Wordperfect document has a bug because it does not open as expected in Microsoft Word. Or that HD-DVD is a bug in the high definition disc, because it doesn't work as expected in my Blu-Ray player. It isn't a bug. It's a difference in spec. I may have personal opinions on the matter, about whether or not I agree that if I stuff a 5 1/2-foot refrigerator box with 2 1/2 feet of padding on all sides, that the height of my refrigerator box is now 6 inches. Really? Because it kinda still looks 5 1/2 feet tall. But that's the standard, and yes, it's good for everyone if we all agree that the height of the box is 6 inches. The Standards for Refrigerator Measurement disagreed with G.E. on how to measure the box, and we've sided with the SRM. Great, move on. But G.E. was not wrong for suggesting originally that the box is 5 1/2 feet tall because, um, it is. --[[Special:Contributions/66.119.170.242|66.119.170.242]] ([[User talk:66.119.170.242|talk]]) 20:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
== Criticism ==
Line 329 ⟶ 336:
:: In some future CSS3 article, we may discuss the detailed features of CSS3, and maybe mention their history, if someone publishes the W3C's discussions and thinking processes in a way we can cite. This article is about the 'Internet Explorer box model bug': It was a bug (as stated by Soumyasch above), it was called a bug by those who wrote about it at the time (including those who found and published the workarounds), it never got fixed, and it caused lots of web pages to display inconsistently until developers learned the CSS hacks to work around it. This article is about the bug where some MS developers either didn't read the spec before writing their code, or read it and decided they could do better than the W3C spec. Everyone called it this at the time, and that's why this is the right name for the article. The <code>-ms-box-sizing</code> feature and the stuff in CSS3 presumably aren't bugs, but this is not about them - this is about the 'Internet Explorer box model bug'. How much clearer can that be? --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It clearly isn't a bug. A bug is an error, not a difference of opinion. The major problem is that the CSS for reasons best known to themselves chose a nonsensical "box" model which is counter-intuitive (as demonstrated by the metaphor of a real, physical box and its contents) and which has no merits of its own. It is a very great pity that they could not recognise that they had boobed, and changed the official spec to the superior IE model. At least we have the grudging "box-size" inclusion to work with. But I find it hard to believe that anyone would think the W3C spec is superior to the IE spec on merit alone. So anyway, it clearly isn't a bug, by any normal definition of the term "bug".[[Special:Contributions/82.71.30.178|82.71.30.178]] ([[User talk:82.71.30.178|talk]]) 15:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
==Requested move==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
'''nominator withdrawal''', I (nominator) have decided to withdrawal this proposal.--[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 21:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC) <result>
[[Internet Explorer box model bug]] → [[Internet Explorer box model]] — The problem may historically be a bug, but due to its prevalence, it is no longer viewed by the web development community as a bug, but rather a different box model implemented by the browser. The different models are called "content-box" and "border-box" respectively in CSS. Major browsers now support proprietary tags allowing CSS developer to specify which model they wish to use [http://www.quirksmode.org/css/box.html]. — [[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Line 339 ⟶ 353:
*'''Oppose''' - this is what it is commonly called all over the web and in textbooks. This has been brought up before - please see the archive. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' cite your "textbook", btw Google test [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22box+model+bug%22&btnG=Search "box model bug"] only 5000 hits, compare to [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=css+%22box+model%22&btnG=Search the general topic] (169,000). --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
:::[http://www.sitepoint.com/books/css1/errata.php], [http://www.digital-web.com/articles/zen_of_css_design/], [http://www.learnwebdesignonline.com/books/detail/css-anthology.htm]. Please try to be more [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 20:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::"Please try to be more [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]." Same to you. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
===Discussion===
:''Any additional comments:''
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
== Support for Internet Explorer's box model ==
The final paragraph mentions that there is now a proprietary CSS property that Firefox and its derivatives understand that reproduces this IE behaviour if used, but this carries a 'not recommended' comment on its developers' web page.
Line 354 ⟶ 371:
: First of all, the article is not very long, including more detail gives user perspective of the current situation. Secondly, as far as I know, none of the modules is finalized, so citing one while ignoring another constitute favoritism/censorship. I don't even know why this article try to pin the problem on IE, since [http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/7/7-2.html Netscape had a non-W3C box model]. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
::This article is about the ''Internet Explorer box model bug'', that's why it focuses on IE and on this particular bug. Your new edits may be straying off that central subject into less relevant topics like recent W3C spec drafts, recent obscure Mozilla features etc. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::: You are missing the point, IE simply kept the non-W3C box model from pre-CSS era. To cover the the problem as "MS vs W3C" is misrepresentation. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 21:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::No, the point is that IE keeps the non-W3C box model ''to this day'', in various operating modes of IE6, 7 and 8. This can be seen as part of attempts to maintain a "best viewed in IE" web, that is different from the "worldwide" web. It costs a great deal of time, money and effort on the part of the web's designers and coders to try to prevent this becoming reality, despite these attempts.
::::There was no IE support for any CSS box model pre-CSS?! IE3 was the first IE to support any CSS and, "IE3 reliably supports most of the color, background, font and text properties, but does not implement much of the box model."[http://www.w3.org/Style/LieBos2e/history/] IE3 was released on August 13, 1996 and CHSS (later to become just CSS as it could be applied to more than just HTML) had been in existence since October 1994. When IE4 added more support for a CSS box model in Sept 1997, it was either willfully or erroneously contrary to the CSS1 spec that, by then, had been published by the W3C since December 1996. (see [[CSS#History]] and [[Internet Explorer#Version 3]] and the citations leading from those pages) --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: So we both agree that there was a pre-W3C box model, correct? If so, instead of describing the issue as "standard vs legacy" which is what it is, why are you insisting on having the article centered around IE/Microsoft?
::::: The non-box CSS is really of no interest to this conversation, i am not sure why you brought it up, but I would say Netscape 4 was worse in terms of CSS support. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]])
Having given you a couple of weeks to do what you like to this article, I have just tightened up the [[WP:LEAD]]. It is important to stick to the topic of the article at the very start and not begin the article with an argument disputing its very name, I feel. Having begun this discussion section asking the question as to whether or not a particular section was already too long, I am disappointed to see that it has been lengthened with a long preceding paragraph summarising what appear to be the opinions of a series of bloggers.
I don't have the time at the moment to read and appraise each of those references, but if they turn out to be blogs as I suspect, then I'm afraid they'll have to go. As I'm sure you know, WP does not generally regard personal blogs as [[WP:RELIABLE]] sources. If I get a chance, I'd like to go though and upgrade the whole article to the current recommended format for [[WP:CITE]] citations too - you know, using the format <nowiki><ref>{{cite web | url=... | title=... | author=... etc}}</ref></nowiki> rather than the current mish-mash. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 20:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} I updated many references. but the article needs more work anyway! [[User talk:Mabdul|<b style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; color:#000000; font-size:smaller;">mabdul</b>]] 10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
==Requested move==
{{polltop}} '''No consensus''' [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 15:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
[[Internet Explorer box model bug]] → [[CSS box model problem]] — The current title is POV. The box model problem is a problem that has plagued web design/development for years. It is not simply an Internet Explorer issue. Historically, this model was also used by other browsers, as stated and cited in the article. Even now, other browsers are using non-standard box definitions for some of the lesser known features (such as [http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/w3c_cssom.html#t51 offsetX, offsetY]).
The current title also gets in the way of neutral collaboration, as it may be used to label content/discussion on non-IE box model "bugs" as off-topic.
I withdrew my previous move proposal due to the fact that my earlier name did not fully capture essence the problem. — [[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 21:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|Wikipedia's naming conventions]].''
*'''Support''' nominator. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 21:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''; the assertion that this is a 'problem' that isn't limited to Internet Explorer needs to be put forth by a number of reliable sources. It's also called the "Internet Explorer box model" or the "traditional box model" by most experts. There's no justification for removing this name from the title of the article. If anything, the name of the article should simply be "Internet Explorer box model" -- the notion that it's a bug by no means a universal one. <b><span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> [[User:Warren|Warren]]</span> [[User talk:Warren|-talk-]]</b> 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I will add the Netscape 4 boxmodel described in an article(link is somewhere above).(edit:oh and update the picture of course!)--<small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Mabdul|<span style="color:#000;">mabdul</span>]] [[User talk:Mabdul|0=*]]</small> 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The article is supported by numerous citations to published and peer-reviewed university- and professional-level textbooks (as well as to out of date and current W3C recommendations and some private web sites) that refer to this bug and use the terminology in the current title. This terminology is what this article explains. It is clear from the proposal that the move would be to a newly-coined phrase, which some authors feel would provide them with a wider scope to write their own essays, and expound their own synthesis of wide-ranging and currently disparate ideas. Therefore, this article is based on material that can be verified in primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The proposal seems designed to open its door to [[WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position| original research and synthesis]]. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' The current article fails miserable in explaining the problem. It attempts to explain a structured problem, (i.e. "what is definition of 'width' and 'height' in terms of content/padding/border/margin?") by blaming it on the non-compliance of IE, and calling it a [[software bug]]. Also you are [[Wikipedia:Assume bad faith|assuming bad faith]] by thinking that any new contribution or expansion of the article will be "original research". In addition, the current article title is a wiki coined term as none of the citations calling it a bug actually use the phrase "Internet Explorer box model bug". --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
===Discussion===
:''Any additional comments:''
{{pollbottom}}
==CSS box model==
I'm less interested in whether Bill's variation was a [[software bug|mistake]] than in how web designers can '''use''' the [[CSS box model]]. I'm even willing to help write an article about the [[box model]], and I've started a disambiguation page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:The only web designers 'using' "Bill's variation" will be writing web pages for IE5.5 and earlier. This is a very small and diminishing market for them, I would say, in these days of online updates. The rest can refer to the main [[CSS]] article and the specs available from W3C. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
== Removal of referenced and sourced material ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Explorer_box_model_variation&diff=315548386&oldid=313333045 This series of edits] by [[User:Ed Poor]] (also known as 'Uncle Ed' above) removed the following sourced statement and replaced it with a nicely deletable piece of [[WP:WEASEL|weasel wording]].
'''<removed>'''<br/>
The '''Internet Explorer box model bug''' is a [[software bug]] in the implementation of [[Cascading Style Sheets]] in earlier versions of [[Microsoft]]’s [[Internet Explorer]] [[web browser]] for [[Microsoft Windows]].<ref>{{cite book |title=HTML Utopia: Designing Without Tables Using CSS |last=Shafer |first=Dan |year=2005 |publisher=[[Sitepoint]] |___location=Melbourne |isbn=0-9579218-2-9 |pages=124 & Appendix C |url=http://www.sitepoint.com/books/css1/errata.php }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The Zen of CSS Design |last=Shea |first=David |coauthors=Molly E. Holzschlag |year=2005 |publisher=Peachpit Press |___location=Berkeley |isbn=0321303474 |url=http://www.digital-web.com/articles/zen_of_css_design/ }}</ref><br/>
'''</removed>'''
'''<added>'''<br/>
Some software designers{{who}} have branded this a "[[software bug]]".<br/>
'''</added>'''
No matter how long Ed has been editing WP, I propose that these edits are a clear reduction in the usefulness of this article. Where we once had two references to University-level textbooks on web technologies using an established piece of terminology and explaining it in the opening of this article, we now have mealy-mouthed weasel words that sound like a few designers were once a bit grumpy.
At the same time as he removed this sourced content from the opening, he said it was going into [[CSS box model|another article]] that he was writing. At the moment that other article consists of "The CSS box model is essentially a box that wraps around HTML elements, and it consists of: margins, borders, padding, and the actual content." [1] (The quotes are his and are there). Nothing except this one links to the new article.
Oh, and he 'moved' this article too. All this with no warning, no discussion and no consensus. I'm not going to get into a 'move war', but I am going to revert these edits until we find out what his motivation and plan is, and what other contributors think of this plan. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
:Hey, speaking of grumpy ...
:But seriously, folks, when I started out at Wikipedia, we had a rule called "Be bold".
:In this case, it seems that you all have decided that the '''difference''' between Microsoft's implementation of the [[CSS box model]] and the W3C standard constitutes a [[software bug]]. I didn't know that, and from reading the article I felt that it was just a deliberate move on their part rather than, say, a coding error. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
==[[CSS box model]]==
My motivation is to let others know all I have recently learned about CSS and its box model. I could care less whether IE has a "[[bug]]" or [[design flaw]]; or they just decided to be different to stifle their competition. All I care about is helping other web developers to write workable code.
Now if anyone wants to join me in some [[WP:TEAMWORK|collaborative writing]], then let's share our energy and explain what the box model is, how it works, and how to use it. I don't want to fight or argue. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 02:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
:If it is not a bug, but a deliberate choice to implement it that way, then it should not say "bug". Especially if the other major browser, Netscape, implemented it the same way. --[[User:Joshua Issac|Joshua Issac]] ([[User talk:Joshua Issac|talk]]) 10:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
== Quirks mode triggering if "there are errors anywhere in the document" ==
This claim seems to be not true (kind of web design urban legend). MSDN and other relieble sources on browser modes (e.g. http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/) don't confirm that any browser changes the rendering mode if the part of the document is already loaded and rendered. It's true that the errors in the document may be treated differently in Quirks mode and in Standards compliance mode, but these rules are defined only once — in the beginning of the document parsing, when Doctype is parsed. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.124.157.26|178.124.157.26]] ([[User talk:178.124.157.26|talk]]) 11:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on [[Internet Explorer box model bug]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/810469896|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115183512/http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/02/css-ie-only to http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/02/css-ie-only
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209090244/http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/a/aaboxmodelhack.htm to http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/a/aaboxmodelhack.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103111556/http://renownedmedia.com/blog/css-box-model-differences-in-firefox-and-internet-explorer/ to http://renownedmedia.com/blog/css-box-model-differences-in-firefox-and-internet-explorer/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
| |||