- From: Alan J. Flavell <flavell@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:20:46 +0100 (BST)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: WAI Markup Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Jason White wrote: > The guidelines should definitely not recommend the use of NBSP or any > other non-standard technique for achieving particular visual effects in > user agents that have inadequate support for HTML table markup. I have a great deal of sympathy with what you're saying here, which is one reason I've been careful to point out that my own paper was originally composed for a different purpose, and why I've tried to steer the discussion away from the tricks that can't pass syntax validation. However, I'm not sure in what sense you mean that stuffing with no-break spaces is "non-standard". It is syntactically valid, and I'm not aware of anything in the HTML spec with which it is _inconsistent_, albeit there is nothing in the spec that _guarantees_ that it will work. That having been said, one would have every right to argue that the technique/trick is inappropriate to be recommended in the present context. That it is in the nature of a trick is not contested! My perception is that Lynx is used by many users who are in the kind of situation for which the WAI guidelines are intended. In an ideal world, Lynx would support TABLEs properly when it was needed; the fact is that it doesn't. > It is the > responsibility of the user agent to provide proper support for HTML > constructs, not that of the author to compensate for the idiosyncrasies of > implementations that fail to meet the standards set forth in W3C > recommendations. Again, I've much sympathy for the principles, but in a practical sense one may sometimes have to compromise. After all, the HTML4.0 spec says noble things about how speaking browsers are to make tables accessible, but in practice today such support would be the exception rather than the rule, and it would be inappropriate for authors to behave as if such sophisticated browsers as described in the spec were widespread. While I absolutely would not expect to see table tricks in the main body of the guidelines with a "RECOMMENDED" status, I submit that it can be useful to offer practical advice to authors, as is presently done in a series of appendices, and that this kind of advice could be appropriate there. The exact nature of the advice offered is of course fully open to debate, but I suggest you're going too far when you ask to rule it out of court entirely. best regards.
Received on Saturday, 25 April 1998 10:20:56 UTC