W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Validation error frequencies

From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:44:28 +0000
Message-ID: <47A2BFCC.7040907@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>

In general, I'm completely opposed to this philosophy
of "let's make standard (or 'conforming') what the
real world already does", since to my mind it is
tantamount to letting the horse decide where to
deliver the milk, but let's put that to one side
for now :

Henri Sivonen wrote:

>> 0099 / 400    Attribute “cellspacing” not allowed on element “table” 
>> from namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml” at this point.
> 
> See border. Let's make "0" conforming.
> 
> Also, border-spacing doesn't work in IE7, so leaving this to CSS doesn't 
> work for most authors, yet.
> 
>> 0095 / 400    Attribute “cellpadding” not allowed on element “table” 
>> from namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml” at this point.
> 
> See border. Let's make "0" conforming.

I hadn't even realised that HTML 5 sought to deprecate
"cellspacing" and "cellpadding".  Given that both are
perfectly acceptable in HTML 4.01 Strict, what was/is
the justification (if any) for removing them from the
draft specification for HTML 5 ?  Unless it can be
unequivocally demonstrated that they are a Bad Thing [tm],
I believe they should be retained, and that no
arbitrary constraint(s) should be placed on the range
of possible values of each.

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Friday, 1 February 2008 06:44:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:12 GMT