Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Tag: |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows
}}
==Fails To Mention Height==
Line 334 ⟶ 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==
Line 354 ⟶ 358:
===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 ==
Line 379 ⟶ 383:
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|<
==Requested move==
Line 396 ⟶ 400:
*'''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|<
*'''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)
Line 444 ⟶ 448:
: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)
| |||