I don't know about you, but I find it very frustrating that web browsers, particularly Firefox, do not properly support the TITLE attribute as it is laid out in W3C HTML specifications. Sadly Firefox is the worst of the browsers when it comes to properly supporting the TITLE attribute with MSIE providing some of the better support. This isn't a trivial matter; it is a major usability/accessibility issue. Without browsers properly supporting the TITLE attribute, web developers are forced to use JavaScript hacks to do what the TITLE attribute is supposed to do -- this is cumbersome and impedes accessibility for the disabled. We are always told to make sure our webpage code validates to W3C specifications and promoters/developers of browsers like Firefox and Opera are quick to declare "validate the code" when someone can't figure out why their pages "work correctly" in MSIE but not Firefox, Opera, etc. Well this is a two way street; web developers have the right to expect web browsers to also properly support those same W3C specifications. For over six years people have been complaining in Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375) about Firefox's particularly bad TITLE attribute support, yet the problem still languishes. How long are we going to have to wait to see a resolution to this problem? How long until some developer who knows C++ and understands Firefox's source code digs into this problem and finally does something about it? Don't keep giving us excuses about one bug holding up another bug, fix the damn bugs already. Six years is way too long for a bug of this nature to languish. A really interesting blog on this matter is at: http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2006/09/02/the-poorly-supported-title-attribute/
Strange.. I always thought it worked just fine, but that's probably because I never really designed a site..
Because Opera also does not fully implement the title attribute as specified in W3C specifications. See test #2 at http://www.webdevout.net/testcases/title_tooltips/ using Opera.
Have to face some reality here - The browser has space set up to display stuff like the title attribute. It is enough for one line and I cannot see why premium browser space would need to be given to display multiple line title attributes. Opera does give you the proper response as a hover which makes a lot of sense to be honest. Has this been tested with the latest build of the next version of FF? If that version still has many issues, now would be a good time to give feedback and make sure the next version of FF is all nice in relation to this attribute.
What the heck are you talking about "premium browser space"? This is a tooltip "popup". It doesn't take any "extra" browser space. In regards to not displaying multiple lines, I have plenty of very good, very valid, very useful reasons to want to format multiple lines in a tooltip via the TITLE attribute but can't because browsers are not properly implementing W3C specifications on this matter. See: So based on this specification I am supposed to be able to instruct multiple lines in a TITLE attribute tooltip by simply using "
". If browsers properly implemented the TITLE attribute, it could be a very powerful means of providing supplemental information like definitions of technical terms, Yahoo News style link descriptions (sans photos), etc. If browsers proberly implemented the TITLE attribute, it would elminate a lot of the need to use JavaScript to provide this functionality. Take a loot at the Bugzilla report I linked to and look at the bug report this bug is dependant upon. These bugs are not on the path to being fixed anytime in the near future unless web developers start shining a spot light on this issue. Mozilla developers seem to be truly disinterested in fixing these bugs. People have been complaining about this issue for over six years in Bugzilla and little to no progress has been made.
Actually understand now. I'll submit the question to Opera about this. As for FF, if enough people ask for this bug correction, it should move up their list. Found some excellent uses and some misuses of the title attribute so far.
Submitting questions on this issue to Opera would be great. Make sure to point them to the blog entry I referenced. It has a great explaination of this issue as well as a good series of tests. In regards to Firefox, there are 265 comments on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 over a six year period and 47 comments on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=228673, which is the bug that blocks bug 45375. I don't think simply requesting a fix is good enough any more. If those with the skills necessary are to take this issue seriously we need to shine a big spotlight on the issue and really force the issue. I'm shocked that Mozilla developers aren't ashamed of the fact that MSIE does a better job of handling the TITLE attribute than Firefox/Mozilla. This really doesn't bode well for the claim that OSS projects like Mozilla resolve issues faster than closed source models.
I've been using FF since it came out, and strongly prefer it over MicroSTOOPID any day -- but, to address your concern, the Title shows correctly in FF; but I noticed one thing in your code: "<HTML lang="en"><head>" Change that to -- <html><head> -- you don't need the lang="en" at all. Lastly, you might also want to fix the following 20 code warnings: line 2 column 83 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 2 column 117 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 7 column 121 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 31 column 58 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 31 column 98 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 38 column 87 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 50 column 54 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 56 column 47 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 81 column 301 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 94 column 61 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 97 column 156 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 180 column 37 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 215 column 60 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 256 column 90 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 290 column 238 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 290 column 278 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 290 column 388 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 338 column 151 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 441 column 121 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & line 492 column 33 - Warning: unescaped & which should be written as & Code (markup):
Totally wrong title. I'm not talking about the TITLE tag (e.g. <title></title>), I'm talking about the TITLE attribute (e.g. <foo title="description"></foo>), which Firefox does the poorest job of implementing of any current browser. Again read the Bugzilla bug reports I linked to. This isn't a design or coding issue with my website. This is a very well documented Firefox/Mozilla bug that has been known about for SIX YEARS and has yet to be fixed. In regards to the "&" unescaped character, I'm not sure what you are talking about, my pages validate to W3C specifications (I just verified) and I always use &. Unless you tried a buried page that has an issue I'm not aware of, I think your HTML validator was flawed.
Well; I haven't seen the World's "Perfect Browser" in over 12 years as a Professional Webmaster -- maybe you can create one for all of us to use. You weren't very clear in your original post about TITLE -- had you mentioned "foo", I would've answered differently. As for your coding errors -- I don't use the W3C Validator, as it's not that accurate and reliable; your errors are not in a buried page -- they're on your main page.
Your post had no merit in it at all. Instead of admitting that you didn't know what a title attribute was you go off into a tangent ranting about perfect browsers and that basically your html validator is better than W3C's one. For the sake of it, I checked out the site again - The following are results from some of the html validators I had bookmarked: W3C - http://validator.w3.org/ - no errors Web Design Group - http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/ - No errors Dr Watson - http://watson.addy.com/ - No errors Validome - http://www.validome.org/ - No errors For our benefit, please tell us which validator you use?
Indeed, if one has been developing code for 12 years, one should know the difference between an "attribute" and a "tag". There is an extremely clear difference. Furthermore, reading the Bugzilla bug reports and the blog on this topic that I linked to would have reinforced that clarity. They used an HTML Tidy extension for Firefox (found out via PM). As I pointed out via PM, the W3C is the ultimate authority of validation as the W3C writes the specifications. I have been validating HTML for as long as there have been HTML validators and have found non-W3C validators frequently have validating bugs that report back bogus errors. For these reason I advise people to always use W3C's validators. For Firefox users I recommend the Webdeveloper extension as it makes using W3Cs validators very easy. People, instead of getting defensive about your favorite browser, look at this issue with an open mind. There is a serious lack of conformity to W3C specifications in regards to the implementation of the TITLE attribute across all browsers, which impedes good web development and accessibility. This post isn't here to claim browser 'X' is better than browser 'Y'. This post is here to try and build awareness of an accessibility and usability issue that ALL browsers need to address. It just happens that in this instance, Firefox is the worst of the lot, with Opera getting it mostly correct (but not entirely). This issue is no different than trying to get all browsers to pass the Acid test, which is designed to test HTML/CSS rendering compliance to W3C specifications. Again, if we can get browser developers to fully support the W3C HTML specifications that are relevant to the TITLE attribute, then web developers would not need to rely on clunky JavaScript hacks for this functionality, which would ease web development, improve usability of websites and improve accessibility. It isn't like the specifications in question are new specifications; they have been in existence since at least 1999. This is more than enough time for ALL browser developers to get the implementation of the TITLE attribute correct.
FYI, I have logged a bug report with Opera on this. Will be interesting to see how they respond. Browsers do get users defensive We like pot shots at each other but tis all good in the end. Nice to see Opera can pass Acid test too
Thank you both for your comments, although somewhat rude -- I misread the original post ... as for Validators; we all have our personal choice, and I for one have never liked W3C for various reasons, which is why I use different methods to achieve 100% validation.
Normally I would agree about to each our own. In this case, however, by definition, unless you validate to W3C's Validator, you do not achieve 100% validation. After all, THEY WRITE THE RULES and are the sole authority on this matter. Love it or hate it, the W3C Validator IS THE FINAL WORD on the matter. Thus unless one can prove that there is a bug with W3C's Validator, which is extremely unlikely after around a decade of refining, any validator that disagrees with W3C's validator is by definition wrong. A case and point with this is the fact that the validator you used claimed there were validation errors with my pages when in fact there are none and this was backed up not only by W3C's validators but several other validators mentioned above. Don't confuse personal preference with accepting the fact that there are times with a single entity is the ultimate authority and has the final word on the matter as is the case with the W3C. Now if we could get back to the matter at hand, which is trying to get web browsers to properly handle tooltips for the TITLE attribute.
After going thru your original post and links you provided, I now agree with you 100%, having not given that much thought until you mentioned it! Question -- in the FF Developer Tools, have you tried the "Total Validator" yet? Just tried it myself, and it's rather interesting.
I think this is the real reason the TITLE attribute is so badly neglected by browser developers. None of them take it very seriously, yet it could be a very useful and elegant feature if implemented as intended. It is also very infuriating to have Firefox and Opera "fanboys" (especially the developers of those browsers) declare with religious fervor to validate the code every time someone has a browser rendering issue, yet see such an obvious bug go unfixed in Firefox/Mozilla for over six years. If web developers are going to be expected to validate their code to W3C specifications, web developers have the right to expect that browser developers will fully implement those same specifications. Now in fairness to Opera, they do pass the Acid 2 test and they do handle the TITLE attribute better than any other browser. Their support of the TITLE attribute; however, is still not complete and I really look forward to see the response Opera has to the inquires on this issue. One would think that this would be a fairly easy issue for Opera to address. This should also be a fairly straight forward issue for Microsoft to address. Unfortunately it sounds like Firefox has a more problematic bug that has to be fixed before they can fix this issue; however, I'm sure if some Firefox developers really took ownership of both bugs they could work out a fix in a reasonable time frame.
You just said a mouthful, and again I agree with you -- seems that many Browser developers tend to overlook many important facets in the design stage; hopefully, they'll all wake up soon and fix the bugs that have been called to their attention by users.