W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2010

[Bug 9355] Obsolete presentational markup should be conforming

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:56:47 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NvigB-0001On-VN@wiggum.w3.org>

Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
            Summary|Many, most, or all obsolete |Obsolete presentational
                   |features should be          |markup should be conforming
                   |conforming                  |

--- Comment #2 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com>  2010-03-28 02:56:47 ---
After discussing with Maciej on IRC, I changed this bug to only request that
presentational markup be made conforming.  I believe that comment #0 applies
more or less verbatim, if you interpret it as applying only to presentational

There are three points given to justify the prohibition of presentational
 However, all three apply equally well or better to inline style="":

* "The use of presentational elements leads to poorer accessibility": It would
be more correct to say "The use of non-semantic markup leads to poorer
accessibility."  This is absolutely true -- however, it applies just as much to
style="" as to other presentational markup.
* "Higher cost of maintenance": Inline style costs just as much to maintain as
other presentational markup.  Indeed, in some cases it costs a lot more.  A
style=""-based equivalent to <table cellpadding=n> would be much more
cumbersome, since you'd have to add style to every cell.  (<style scoped> is
not yet widely supported, so cannot be used here, but doesn't interact well
with nested tables, etc.)
* "Higher document sizes": style="" is usually longer than equivalent
non-style="" presentational markup.  E.g., compare <u> to <span

I cannot find any actual reason given in the spec for why nearly all
presentational markup is banned when style="" is not.  I can think of reasons,
like encouraging a uniform/consistent/easier-to-learn language, but they seem
weak compared to the large cost of converting and maintaining documents that
use such markup.  As I argue in comment #0, this will mostly serve to make
validators less useful to authors, and will be a net loss according to the
priority of constituencies.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2010 02:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:48 UTC