[Bug 24591] Make W3C HTML5 spec clearly and correctly state that table@border is obsolete & invalid (nonconforming)

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24591

--- Comment #1 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
* I recommend the editors that they close this bug as invalid.

* I recommend Mike to open separate bug where we can discuss whether @border is
presentational markup. 

(In reply to Michael[tm] Smith from comment #0)

The related bug 24559 has been reopened because Mike currently has NU validator
issue a warning. I would like to cite why I reopeed, as it goes directly on
Mike’s claim that having @border is presentational markup.

(Citing Leif Halvard Silli in comment number eight in
<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24559#c8>:)

> I am sorry, but I have to reopen the bug. This because of the following:
> 
> The fix apparently is that NU validator instead issues a warning claiming
> that @border=1 is presentational markup. I don’t see that this is acceptable
> from the point of view of the change proposol that prevailed w.r.t to
> table=border=1. And I had already indicated that such a fix would not be
> acceptable:
> 
> (In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #2)
> 
> > It must also be a vialotion of the spec to recommend authors to use CSS if
> > that implies to delete the border=1. 
> 
> By the way: I note that in the thread in www-validator@ you cited HTML5’s
> claim that all presentational markup has been removed as justification.
> However, from where I stand - and this was also put forward together with
> the change proposal - the <table> element has *two* defaults: One default
> when border is not present, and another default when border is present.
> Thus, I consider table@border=1 to be compatible with HTML5’s claim that it
> has removed all presentational markup.
> 
> If you disagree with this, then I expect you to file a bug against HTML5’s
> claim that all presentational markup has been removed.
> 
> You should also consider that the chairs, when the CP prevailed, said that
> it would also be possible to (re)consider the *other* table attributes -
> frame,rules,cellspacing,cellpadding. Personally I would have liked to see in
> particular @rules being conforming, as it is such a simple and poweverful
> way of - literally - highilighing the semantic lines of a table. Som from my
> standpoint, it was also a compromise - something I chose to live with - that
> I never has raised the issue of the other attributes. If you are adding this
> warning, then at least for myself, the compromise is no longer in balance.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 14:47:03 UTC