Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 334:
:: 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==
| |||