> w3 is probably correct > It's hardly W3's fault Note that W3Schools is not the W3, and have no official affiliation. > They are dumb because it really makes

> w3 is probably correct > It's hardly W3's fault Note that W3Schools is not the W3, and have no official affiliation. > They are dumb because it really makes no difference. ... getting butt hurt because of a "Tip" It does make a difference. If that tip had been true, it would mean I'd been writing HTML that only worked in a subset of browsers the whole time, and I would've needed to go over all HTML forms I'd ever written and correct them to ensure browser compatibility, and educate my colleagues who also left off the attribute. Are you suggesting that I should read something like that, that if true would mean that all the forms I've written are broken, and just ignore it? Or blindly trust it, and demand that my colleagues change their code style on the basis of an unsubstantiated "tip"? What was I meant to do other than dig deeper to try to find out the truth? > W3Schools gave you the information litterally from teh HTML4 spec Yes. Which has been obsolete for years, and yet their page isn't updated. > I checked the W3Schools page and it literally says "Note: Only Firefox supports colspan="0",..." Contrary to what is in your StackOverlflow post I literally quote the same passage in my post and note, explicitly, that it is untrue. Firefox's behaviour is just like all the other browsers. Also, a moment ago you were berating me for taking an aside seriously. Now you're also berating for not scrutinising every aside for caveats that contradict the main documentation? It's unclear that there's any approach to reading W3Schools that will satisfy you, other than magically divining the truth from their docs even when what they write is wrong. > People just need to learn to read Evidently.