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

Re: Validation error frequencies

From: j.j. <moz@jeka.info>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:42:27 +0100
Message-ID: <20080212044227.e3ujkc4xs00k8o8g@www.hosting-agency.de>
To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net> hodd gsachd:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:28:38 -0000, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>>> ...
>> <img style='border: 0;'> is not an improvement over <img border='0'>.

style="border:0" on numerous img elements isn't an improvement, but

   <style> /*a*/ img {border:none} </style>

is. A validator should give this hint. I bet a lot of authors would be  
glad to know this "fancy trick".

> ...

>> <nobr> has been around forever and must continue to be supported by  
>>  browsers. What's the harm in making it conforming, too?
> I think the harm is in making HTML5 less clean and simple for authors.
> If element is conforming, it's more likely to be used and more likely
> to be taught. <nobr> and <a name> have good replacements and are
> unnecessary additions/exceptions for someone who doesn't have to deal
> with legacy code.

Yes, in the end authors will profit from a cleaner and simpler HTML.  
There are enough unavoidable dirty hacks inside.

>>> <wbr> ...

quirksmode.org isn't up to date here, I think. &#8203; breaks the line in IE7.

<bugreport microsoft edgecase>
   <p style="width:2em"> xxxxxxx&#8203;yyyyyyy </p>

   If both, "xxxxxxx" and "yyyyyyy" overflow the container,
   IE7 adds an additional blank line.

Note the interoperability issues with <wbr>.

Yes, ok, yes, <wbr> is better than &#8203; from author's view.  
Following our current Design Principles, it's a "must have". But the  
validation error freqency isn't the best argument here and elsewhere.

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 03:42:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:30 UTC