Talk:Comparison of layout engines (HTML)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 possible NOSCRIPT references ?
- 2 Engine order?
- 3 abbr and object in Trident
- 4 almost standards mode
- 5 Numbers in Tables
- 6 accessibility
- 7 right statement, wrong example
- 8 Original research?
- 9 Table Reformatting
- 10 Test Suites
- 11 Doctype sniffing section
- 12 html version
- 13 col
- 14 Add/remove engines discussion
- 15 Move discussion in progress
possible NOSCRIPT references ?
Is there any particular convention for the order the engines are listed in the tables?
How about alphabetical or reverse alphabetical. · Reisio 08:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
abbr and object in Trident
abbr will be supported in IE 7 Beta 2. object fallback will be "improved" too. Prepare for update when IE 7 is out. --minghong 05:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the final word on it. I'm going to update the article accordingly. — Jaxad0127 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
almost standards mode
Opera has now a standards mode as well. See also http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/sgml/doctypeSGML.html
Numbers in Tables
I think either the explanation of the numbers in the tables or the numbers themselves have to change...
Paragraph 3 of the article says the numbers are "version" numbers...
But the very first entry, the "HTML" entry for Trident says "5"
According to the page on Trident, Trident 5 is Internet Explorer 7, which hasn't been released yet.
Does this mean that HTML isn't supported in IE6? Of course not; it appears the page is trying to say it was supported in IE5, which was Trident 2. But then the heading should be "IE/Windows", or the number should be "2" to match the heading.
There's no information regarding the support of accessibility features such as tabindex and accesskey attributes here.
right statement, wrong example
"The amount of emulation differs between the layout engines, e.g. Presto uses the standardized W3C box layout model even in quirks mode." - this is not correct; since version 7 Presto uses border-box model. I think Gecko is meant. Test (german). --Grey
- Okay... maybe the statement was meant with some version of Opera 9 in mind. It behaves exactly like Gecko, i.e. even in quirksmode it uses content-box model. Will change article to reflect that. Swift says content-box. Anyone test in iCab, Konqueror, Safari? --Grey 17:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
How is this not original research? Vonfraginoff 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The matter is discussed elsewhere. There are sources in each article of the series that verify almost all data for the "major" browsers. Several people have suggested to move/import this to Wikibooks, but ultimately, there is no consensus on what to do with comparison articles. This series is especially well seen and a good online reference. The one that tries to excessively delete information will face hard opposition. Most of it actually is verifyable, but most often the sources are not cited (and of course there is original research involved, too, but there is barely any information that can't be confirmed some way). --Grey 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering, would anyone be annoyed if the table cells were changed to "rowspan" attributes? That's how it is in the CSS comparison. Moronicles 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- You will find that most of this has been removed in the CSS article (by minghong if I remember correctly), because it makes editing a pain and thus scares people off from contributing. And although I don't expect much change in these tables, I'm still against it. Thanks for asking. Grey 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Where the test suites can be obtained to check / augment the tables? We should make these test suites publicly avaiable to make this information verifieble, to conform to Wikipedia standards. --Maxim Masiutin 00:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Doctype sniffing section
Is there a unified definition of what exactly "Standard", "Quirks" and "Almost Standard" modes actually are and what they do or does each browser have its own definition of exactly what these mean? Also there are no sources provided for anything other than Firefox and Opera, yet there is information for other browsers which appears to be OR. -- Gudeldar 09:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can't the detailed information be found in Quirks mode article and it's references ? --Fenring 11:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I deleted the table and everythink and stored it in User:Mabdul/quriks-old.
- The table in Quirks mode article is updated and better now. if somebody want to add the table again here in this article, don't be shy, I don't know how! Mabdul (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
is there anybody against the changes I want to mak in the near future with this article like in my sandbox? User:Mabdul/sandbox I have everything researched in the html version 2.0, 3.2 and in the next i want to read more of them (link 5 or 3.0 etc) mabdul 0=* 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to do it the same way as it is done in the CSS equivalent of this article, putting the HTML version where the element were introduced as the first column. The coloring is unnecessary as you have a Deprecated and historical attributes section anyway. Actually that section could probably be removed as there is a non standard HTML article that also lists deprecated elements already. Also, the address tag is still there in HTML 4 and is also included in the HTML 5 spec. --Execvator (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- ok that is real and goog critism. I thik i will change the article as you emntioned. but if there is an address tag any more (i have to look, not time today) we need to mentioned it in this article. the rest to move to non stabdard is already a good choise. thanks for help! mabdul 0=* 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the distinction between HTML4 and prior versions doesn't serve a purpose. HTML3.2 is old, archaic and not recommended to be used anywhere. Nor is it a popular version of HTML. A distinction between HTML4 and HTML5 might be worth having, but HTML5 isn't even CR yet, and even less is it supported by any browsers. I recommend dropping the version identifier for now. Should we introduce HTML5 elements into this article at a future time, Execvator's suggestion is sound, I think. --Grey (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The article shows "col" as "Yes" for all browsers (except Tasman = "?"). Why is this Yes and not Partial? I don't think any of these web browsers has ever supported HTML4's <col align="char">, e.g., Mozilla's report to implement this ("this attribute is completely failing") has been open since 1999. Web searches show the same non-support for other browsers.
More generally, I find it surprising that so many of these tags would show full support in so many browsers, and as early as Gecko 1.0. Do we exempt tags that no browser supports? Or are attributes ignored, and this table only shows support for the raw element itself? What's the standard for getting a Yes here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Add/remove engines discussion
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Comparison of layout engines (Cascading Style Sheets)#Adding new engines regarding which engines should be added to/removed from the comparison pages. Requesting the participation of any interested parties. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Comparison of web browser engines which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)