W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2011

[Bug 13120] Obsolete <wbr>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:57:04 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qcyoq-0004v0-Rz@jessica.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:13 UTC