- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:57:04 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13120 --- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-07-02 11:57:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) JUSTIFICATION continued: 10) FUD: Keeping <wbr> valid only serves to sustain FUD about how well browsers support the Zero Width Space character (zwsp). For example, pointing to the lackign support for zwsp in very legacy IE6, Wikipedia gives the impression that <wbr> is better supported than the Zero Width Space character: [link] ]] In HTML pages this space can be used as a potential line-break in long words as a replacement for the non-standard <wbr> tag. However, the zero-width space is not supported in all web browsers, most notably Internet Explorer version 6 and below[1]. [[ [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zero-width_space&oldid=435186349 The reality is of course the opposite: Zero Width Space character is *better* supported than <wbr>. [11] Too many options: HTML5 includes 5 named character references for the zwsp character. Thus authors have enough options. The <wbr> option only serves to create confusion about the benefits of the character versus the element. [12] If "simple to type" is an argument then &zwsp; can be made a valid named character references, as requested in Bug 1310. -- 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 Saturday, 2 July 2011 11:57:05 UTC