- From: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>
- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:41:10 +0100
Ashley Sheridan schrieb: > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 01:56 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Mar 2, 2010, at 1:41 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> > 2) I do not believe the proposed rule is a good default for either >> > documents or applications. It looks ugly. I randomly checked 10 of >> > the sites I browse most often and I could not find a single one that >> > explicitly added this rule for the browsers that don't have it. >> > What's more, I could not find a single one that retained it for >> > images. This rule is just a vestigial artifact that Web developers >> > have to work around. >> >> I partially take it back, news.google.com and images.google.com >> deliberately add blue borders to image links. However they do not use >> a default border (it's 1px instead of 2px for one thing). >> >> - Maciej >> > > I agree with David Baron on this. The majority of browsers render images > within links as having a border (which is the image highlight equivalent > of a text underline when you think about it in context). Having some > default expected behavior would be nice to see in a spec, even if the > majority of websites actually override it. Having it in a spec will > remain consistent with the older browser implementations, and may serve > as a guideline as to exactly what should be expected. > > Besides, like you say Maciej, most website devs override this rule > anyway, so it won't actually break anything, it would just clarify what > is already happening. I assume that it would be desirable for a specified default to reflect the most common case, unless there are serious BC issues. The most common case seems to be images without borders. I apologize for the case this is a stupid suggestion: Could the spec say that the default for HTML5 is no border, but UAs are encouraged to render linked images in documents with pre-HTML5 or no doctypes with a border?
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 02:41:10 UTC