- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:44:28 +0000
- 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 UTC