- From: j.j. <moz@jeka.info>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:09:25 +0100
- 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 ​ 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