Re: HTML 5 conformance: table border obsolete?

Hi Guus,

Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, 2014-02-06 15:38 +0100:

> On 06-02-14 15:12, Shane McCarron wrote:
> >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.
> 
> I know how to move it to CSS, that's not the issue. The point is: this bug
> in the validator creates a problem for us at a critical point in time.

I hear you and I've already given the webmaster a heads-up about it and
told him he can safely disregard the messages when he gets the actual
publication request -- which as far as I can understand from talking with
him has not yet happened yet. So this is not blocking you from publication
and if there is still any pushback at the time you do request publication,
then please remind the webmaster (or your staff contact) to contact me.

We have plenty of precedent for publishing WDs even when some of our tools
report problems in them. For example, before work was done last year (or
maybe the year before) to get the CSS validator up to date, the CSS
validator used to report a ton of false positives for various things. But
the webmaster was aware of that, so back then we recognized there was a
mismatch between the CSS validator and the specs, and the webmaster
understood we could go ahead with publication in spite of the mismatch.

> I simply want it repaired.

I apologize for the fact it's created an acute problem for you with
pubrules and your drafts, but with respect, it's not a bug -- because the
current behavior is intentional, not accidental. So it's not strictly a
matter of getting anything "repaired". For the immediate problem you're
dealing with, it's a matter of getting a resolution that enables you to get
your drafts through pubrules. And we have resolution on that already.

  --Mike

> >On Feb 6, 2014 7:35 AM, "Guus Schreiber" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl
> ><mailto: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
> >        <mailto:xn--mlform-iua@m%C3%A5lform.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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike

Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 17:23:14 UTC