User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0 Requested enhancement - to support CSS3 Marquee http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-marquee/ Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Go to http://www.HTML-5.com/css-styles/css-style-properties/marquee-style.html#examples in Safari 5 - see how the marquee effect works 2. Go to http://www.HTML-5.com/css-styles/css-style-properties/marquee-style.html#examples in Firefox 4 3. It should automatically scroll to the examples at the bottom of the page like it did in Safari but if it doesn't, put the cursor in the address bar and hit Return. (Not honoring the fragment identifier in the URL when the page is initially loaded is a regression from May 2010, Firefox Bug #645075.) 4. See that the examples with "marquee" style don't move. Actual Results: The content with "marquee" style don't move in Firefox like they do in Safari. Expected Results: Would like Firefox to support the marquee CSS style eventually. The marquee effect created by the "marquee" styles is quite useful on devices with smaller screens (cell phones, etc.) and it would be nice to see that it works OK when development desktop-browser-based sites in Firefox rather than having to use Safari. Thanks!
You can use the <marquee> element for that, currently.
>> You can use the <marquee> element for that, currently. In older versions of HTML you could, but not currently. If you do, the W3C Markup Validation Service reports errors, and so it's no longer "Valid HTML" (see the link at the bottom of those pages). The reason those example pages (1 and 2 above) validate successfully is that they do not actually have any actual instances of the <marquee> tag, only ones that have the angle brackets escaped so that they are recognized as text rather than an HTML tag. Thanks.
Then use <script>//<!-- document.write('<marquee></marquee>'); //--></script> or something like that to fool the w3c validator.
While that would fool the validator, using tags that were deprecated in 1997 and obsoleted over a decade ago would still not be valid HTML according to the HTML specification by a long shot. The specification is written in terms of the DOM and the document.write in that example inserts an invalid tag into the DOM. The main purpose of the HTML-5.com site is to help developers move forward and write good HTML code, based on the current specification, which builds on features included in HTML 4 such as moving what used to be coded with presentational tags such as <marquee> into CSS style sheets. Note that the HTML-5.com site itself applies the principle of separation of content and style and takes advantage of the ability to have multiple styles so that, for example, it looks good on mobile devices with smaller screens. Quote (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/introduction.html#presentational-markup): For those reasons, presentational markup has been removed from HTML in this version. This change should not come as a surprise; HTML4 deprecated presentational markup many years ago and provided a mode (HTML4 Transitional) to help authors move away from presentational markup; later, XHTML 1.1 went further and obsoleted those features altogether.
What I don't understand in the above discussion is why using invalid CSS is somehow better than using invalid HTML. The "marquee" properties from the old css3-box drafts are not very likely to actually end up in the spec as they are right now, especially given the existence of CSS3 Animations....
Certainly a good point. It would probably be reasonable to wait to see the outcome. The original issue as mentioned above is with browsers on devices with small screens. There needs to be some basic CSS style to handle longer text on smaller screens, since you can't count on full CSS3 animation support on handheld devices. Right now Safari's support for that is handy, but if there's another option that would work across browsers, that would be at least as good.
> since you can't count on full CSS3 animation support on handheld devices. You can't count on the marquee CSS either, though. What makes you think that would get implemented across the board faster then CSS3 animations (which are already implemented or being implemented in all major browser engines)?