> Practically speaking, I would be a happier person today if I hadn't read that part of the spec, and instead persisted on in blissful ignorance of the element'

> Practically speaking, I would be a happier person today if I hadn't read that part of the spec, and instead persisted on in blissful ignorance of the element's intended semantics. Thanks, specs. Hear hear! I found this hilarious and speaking to a shared feeling about some specs. Of course, I kind of understand why these WTF elements make it into the specs. Maybe it's some stupid corner-case that the first implementor's code handled in an odd way because the code was simpler. Maybe there are other interactions that made it simpler to have this case be weird so that it would at least be consistent with that case. Most often, of course, it's because some vendor's code is a buggy mess of spaghetti code that can barely do the most basic stuff without falling over. We've all been there... ;)