- 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>
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 well. >> 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, ­ 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 ­ in a different colour). -- regards, Kornel Lesiński
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 23:48:55 UTC