W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: <font> (was Support Existing Content)

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 01:52:54 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240619c25c2ddc4158@[]>
To: <public-html@w3.org>, <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>

At 15:01 -0700 UTC, on 2007-04-30, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:


> Note that although the WHATWG spec requires UAs to
> support FONT, it makes it non-conformant for documents except those
> created by a WYSIWYG editor. And even that aspect is in dispute.

Yeah, I meant to ask about
What's the argument for making <font> conforming? I can't think of a good

What's even more weird is the idea to consider content non-/conforming
depending on how it was authored. I can't believe the implications of that
were given serious thought. (Not to mention specifically granting wannabe
'WYSIWYG' editors special status. WYSIWYG has nothing to do with the Web --
people wildly disagree over what "WYSIWYG" means in the context of the Web.
So even if there is some sound argument behind allowing <font>, tying it to
some undefined tool is useless -- at best everyone authoring <font> will
bother to claim to be a WYSIWG editor.)

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 23:57:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:19 UTC