W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-cvs@w3.org > February 2014

[Bug 24559] Nu Markup Checker emits "Use CSS instead" help message for table@border=1

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:36:58 +0000
To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-24559-169-QWStJmCdK7@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24559

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---

--- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
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 14:37:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:17:56 UTC