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

Re: Validation error frequencies

From: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:48:17 -0000
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t6dwerl6ptj49s@aimac.local>

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:28:38 -0000, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

>> 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'>.

Ah, I forgot about IE. You're right then.

>>>> 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='...'>.

Such old, unfixable tools likely emit a lot of other deprecated markup as  

>> 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?

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.

>> <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.

Indeed, but I guess in many cases where <wbr> is used, &shy; would be  
acceptable (the only exception I can think of is when you break  
identifiers of programming language that allows minus in names, and even  
then you could lessen the confusion by styling &shy; in a different  

regards, Kornel Lesiński
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 23:48:55 UTC

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