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

[Bug 13098] Clarify whether <wbr> has the same effect as the zero-width space character

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 17:11:28 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QdQCe-0006Hm-BA@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13098

--- Comment #9 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-07-03 17:11:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> W.r.t. "so that table don't stretch, but don't want invisible characters":  are
> you certain that it is a <wbr> you need? Personally, in most cases, I would
> rather like to have a imaginary <shy> element. 

My use-case is a table of browser tests which has HTML in the cells, with one
column for input, one for the output required by the spec, and one for output
produced by the current browser.  Browsers typically don't break at angle
brackets, so I have my script insert <wbr> in supporting browsers to let it
break before < and after >.  However, if I copy-paste the HTML (which I often
do), I don't want invisible characters changing the meaning unpredictably.  It
will possibly add text nodes where there weren't any, changing behavior of the
algorithms I'm using.

I don't claim this is a common use-case, but it's why I use <wbr> on that page.

> In other words: I don't feel that you justify <wbr> very well. It sounds more
> like a "we have it, so now we must defend it".

Yes, the barrier to retain existing features is much lower than the barrier to
accept new features.

-- 
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, 3 July 2011 17:11:29 UTC

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