W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Enhanced "stylising" request

From: Michael Nahrath <subotnik@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 01:18:04 +0100
To: <html-tidy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B4C66C06.1105%subotnik@gmx.de>
Barney Wol <Barney.Wol@noctua.demon.co.uk> schrieb am 08.02.00 17:39:

> The facility to convert old-fashioned FONT tags etc. to STYLE
> in HTML Tidy is brilliant, and has certainly helped this novice who
> was fighting with the STYLE syntax - thank you!

The problem is it can not make presentational markup structural, so in most
cases the HTML you get is syntactically and presentationally (on the latest
Browsers) correct, but it is not good.

For example: Word 97/98 exports headings (even if defined in Word correctly)
as 'big bold standard-text', not as <h1>...<h6>.

Tidy can convert all the ugly FONT SIZE="5" to CSS but it cannot revert
those lines of 'big bold standard-text' to real HTML-headings.

> There are some slightly surprising omissions from these
> "stylising" conversions though:
> Colour and background image data, traditionaly added to the <BODY>
> tag, can now be encoded within the STYLE definitions.

They could but (in contrast to the FONT-element) they are no problem in
accessibility and don't harm anybody if defined in complete.
Defining them (or something different) may be done with CSS additionally.
> <B> and <U> tags can also be encoded in STYLE, but Tidy doesn't.

In most cases they should rather be replaced by another HTML-element
representing their structural meaning like <STRONG> or <EM> and the
STYLE-Definition should be set for these elements.

Just converting them to <span class="..."> would not produce good HTML.

Greeting, Michi
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2000 19:17:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:47 UTC