- From: Michael Nahrath <subotnik@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 11:45:43 -0600
- To: <html-tidy@w3.org>
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 -- <http://nahrath.de/michael/>
Received on Friday, 24 March 2000 12:46:54 UTC