- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:36:22 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9350 --- Comment #11 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-07-05 23:36:19 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > Reopening an already-fixed bug a year later is probably not the best way to > have the matter reconsidered. What is the best way? I am ready to author a Change Proposal. Because <wbr> seems like one of the most pointless and unjustified additions to HTML5 ever. It seems to have been added solely to bless a Webkit parsing peculiartiy. There hasn't been provided any real use cases. And Opera folks are still resisting the solution in the spec as much as am able to read the bugs. And I find it unlikely that the Webkit behaviour is any worth standardising around - why would e.g. Firefox change its sane behaviour for the Webkit one? > By our process this bug really should have made > it to CLOSED state already. I would suggest looking at the facts first and foremost. Speaking of which, I believe that this (newly updated) test page covers every rabbit hole possible when it comes to wbr: http://malform.no/testing/html5/nobr Btw, there is one option that has not been discussed, and that is to treat <wbr> not as a word seperator in the semantic sense but simply an equivalent of emptyElement{display:inline-block} Because <wbr>, according to my test page (and when we look away from Webkit's peculiarities) is equivalent to an empty element with display:inline-block. This solution would also avoid that <wbr> causes "pres<wbr>ident" to be read by screen readers as two different words. -- 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 Tuesday, 5 July 2011 23:36:24 UTC