- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:06:12 +0200
- To: "Kristine Cummins" <design@kristinecummins.com>, <www-validator@w3.org>
Kristine Cummins wrote: > The Validator is having issues with wrap="physical" [...] > What other options are there that would pass the > validation test? The validator has no "issues" with the attribute. When the document type definition (DTD) used does not allow such an attribute, the validator reports it as an error. This is part of the very job of the validator. Frank Ellerman wrote in his reply (which I cannot reply to, since for some odd reason, my OE treats it as if it were a nrwsgroup posting!) as follows: "If you know precisely why you want wrap="physical", and what it does on legacy browsers, just ignore the error message." Nobody really _knows_ how the different wrap attribute values work on different browsers, old and new. But if an author decides to use the wrap attribute, he should decide which values he uses for them (there have been mutually incompatible systems in different browsers) and use them consistently. A validator can help here but then you need a DTD that contains the attribute, such as my "tagsoup DTD", see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/own-dtd.html#tagsoup (There I declare the allowed values as "off", "soft", "hard". This was the set that was most widely supported by browsers when I last checked the situation, which was years ago.) Frank also wrote: "If there is a CSS trick for the same or a similar purpose working on modern browsers add it, and remove the wrap-workaround in some years ;-)" This feature does not belong to the realm of CSS to the extent that it deals with the form data sent, i.e., whether a browser automatically generates line breaks and inserts them into the user input that will be sent to a server. And wrap="physical" (the old Netscape invention, later often replaced by wrap="hard") is exactly about this. If you really wanted to have such behavior _and_ you wanted to use HTML syntax that complies with some W3C-approved doctype, then you would have to resort to writing a piece of JavaScript that imitates the desired functionality. -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 07:06:08 UTC