- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:28:38 +0200
- To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 1, 2008, at 02:29, Kornel Lesinski wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:50:52 -0000, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> > wrote: > >> In the case of border, I think it would be good also to get rid of >> the default border in Gecko, since other browsers have been able to >> get rid of it without Breaking the Web. > > Instead of allowing border=0 on images I suggest making it > irrelevant by specifying that images should have no border by default. We should do that *as well*, but even if HTML5 says that image links shouldn't have a border by default, people who offer copy-pasteable image embedding snippets will want to make their pieces of HTML self- contained so that they render without the border in the IE and Firefox as already shipped and installed. <img style='border: 0;'> is not an improvement over <img border='0'>. Making images default to no border makes generating HTML simpler in the future. Making border='0' conforming makes it simpler to include pieces of markup from legacy tools and from people with old habits. >>> 0052 / 400 Attribute “name” not allowed on element “a” from >>> namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml” at this point. >> >> Not dead with Netscape 4... > > But it's easy to fix. Not necessarily if you've got legacy tools that are too costly for you to alter and those tools emit <a name='...'>. >>> 0001 / 400 Element “nobr” from namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml >>> ” not allowed in this context. (The parent was element “form” from >>> namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml”.) Suppressing further >>> errors from this subtree. >>> 0002 / 400 Element “wbr” from namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml >>> ” not allowed in this context. (The parent was element “p” from >>> namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml”.) Suppressing further >>> errors from this subtree. >>> 0001 / 400 Element “wbr” from namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml >>> ” not allowed in this context. (The parent was element “a” from >>> namespace “http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml”.) Suppressing further >>> errors from this subtree. >> >> Let's make these conforming. > > I don't agree about nobr - it can be easily replaced with CSS. <nobr> has been around forever and must continue to be supported by browsers. What's the harm in making it conforming, too? > <wbr> might be allowed, given that alternatives aren't quite > interoperable yet (http://www.quirksmode.org/oddsandends/wbr.html), > but OTOH Gecko 1.9 finally supports soft hyphen, so soon <wbr> won't > be indispensable anymore. Soft hyphen and <wbr> are different: soft hyphen renders a hyphen when breaking. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 16:28:58 UTC