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?
