- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 08:12:47 -0600
- To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Message-ID: <CAOk_reFumPb9t3qvVm57uhaFrp3kLYLf2O+SSm=qYasFozmEbw@mail.gmail.com>
I know it can be challenging to use CSS instead of embedding presentational attributes in HTML, but this feels like a simple global change to your spec that would be more consistent with w3c best practices. I would be happy to help with the edits so this 'bug' doesn't get in the way of your publishing. Let me know. On Feb 6, 2014 7:35 AM, "Guus Schreiber" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote: > > > On 06-02-14 13:53, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > >> 2014-02-06 12:09, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: >> >> > Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no>, 2014-02-06 03:10 >> +0100: >> [...] >> >>> Mike, you are not answering the question. >>>> >>> >>> You're right, sorry. >>> >> >> Mike, you are still not answering the question. >> >> As I understand it, you're probably suggesting I should try to answer the >>> question of why, in the particular document that the OP cited, using >>> legacy >>> table@border=1 markup for presentational purposes is a better choice >>> >> >> Whatever Leif may have suggested (and I don't think he suggested that), >> the original question was: >> >> "Is this a validator bug?" >> >> The answer is that @border is conforming in HTML5 and that the validator >>>> has a bug if it does not allow it. There was a change proposal >>>> process to >>>> have @border added back into the spec, and the CP prevailed. >>>> >>> >>> OK, understood. As far as that goes, could you please take a minute to >>> file >>> a bug report? >>> >> >> I don't get it. It seems that the validators http://validator.w3.org and >> http://validator.w3.org/nu/ were recently changed to report the border >> attribute as an error, against the draft specifications and against what >> http://www.validator.nu does. Instead of fixing this bug, you're >> suggesting opening a bug report and, as per your later comment, to >> continue the discussion there. >> >> What is there to be discussed? Either you fix the bug, or you don't. I >> don't think there is anything to be discussed, as the draft >> specifications are so clear. What the specifications should say is a >> different issue >> >> And I suppose the original poster deserves a simple answer to the simple >> question (and to the natural followup question "when will it be fixed?"). >> > > I woud be very grateful if it could be fixed soon. We are going to REC > with 8 docuemtns from different editors, where many use this feature. The > Webmaster will complan if the this "bug" pops up. > > Thanks for the quick responses, > Guus > > PS I personally don't like the border thing either, but as chair I have a > different role. > > > > >> Yucca >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 14:13:15 UTC