W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2007

Re: DogFood (<wbr>)

From: j.j. <moz@jeka.info>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:09:25 +0100
Message-ID: <20071206120925.76ywy3ma88g8k8wo@www.hosting-agency.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>: hodd gsachd:

>> As far as I can tell it's redundant with the Unicode zero width    
>> space and zero width non-joiner characters.
>
> The issue is that broken browsers display such characters as rectangles
> and the like.  Browsers that don't have explicit support <wbr> may or
> may not accept the hint, but the result is generally better than with
> the Unicode alternative.

Opera9, Safari3, FF2, IE7 break at &#8203; without displaying placeholders.

<wbr> is backwards and browser support is incosistent.
Gecko doesn't break at <wbr> inside <nobr> (bug 6347-WONTFIX), and
iirc IE5 did exactly the opposite (breaks only if <wbr> is inside
<nobr>). Opera has apparently no problem with ignoring <wbr> at all.

<http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Cdiv%20style%3Dwidth%3A1px%3E%3Cp%3Exxx%3Cwbr%3Exxx%3Cp%3E%3Cnobr%3Eyyy%3Cwbr%3Eyyy%3C%2Fnobr%3E%3Cp%3Ezzz%26%238203%3Bzzz%3C%2Fdiv%3E>

j.j.

Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>: hodd gsachd:

>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 2) wbr
>>>>> I don't understand the error message that is produced, nor can I figure
>>>>> out what the problem is.  Can you elaborate?
>>>> <wbr> isn't valid HTML (and never has been).
>>> Should it be?  :-)
>>>
>>> i.e., does it serve a useful purpose?  Does it cause any backwards  
>>>  compatibility problems?
>>
>> As far as I can tell it's redundant with the Unicode zero width   
>> space and zero width non-joiner characters.
>
> The issue is that broken browsers display such characters as rectangles
> and the like.  Browsers that don't have explicit support <wbr> may or
> may not accept the hint, but the result is generally better than with
> the Unicode alternative.
>
> Whether it is I've found this to be handy, and I see it recommended
> from time to time on the web, for example:
>
> http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2005/03/cross-browser-invisible-word-break-in.html
> http://www.quirksmode.org/oddsandends/wbr.html
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> P.S.  The reason I did not understand the original message is that I do
> see wbr mentioned in the current draft of the html5, and I don't see
> where it declares that it is an error.
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 11:09:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC