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

Re: [whatwg] <font> (was Support Existing Content)

From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:04:01 +0100
Message-Id: <D67B5695-EF10-4CE2-8CAD-65529B50004C@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>

I'd agree with you Philip, regarding your comments.

Though perhaps not the example.
  I do I feel compelled to add a point regarding CSS usage.
css-garden aside, I don't know anyone who writes CSS for someone  
else's HTML. There will of course be people who do this for a variety  
of specialist applications, but in general you don't see people doing  
it. So I believe that although CSS is *supposed* to be separable, in  
reality it is just used as a convenient way to store style  
declarations for a whole site in one document, and is strongly  
coupled with the HTML created by the author.

So I think the example is a little flawed. After all if you turn off  
the CSS on a great many sites, the results will not be readable at  
all, as it would if you started telling browsers to ignore tags.

Gareth

On 1 May 2007, at 11:52, Philip Taylor (Webmeister) wrote:

>
>
> Adrian Sutton wrote:
>
> > If you outlaw the <font> tag, you'll just get <span style="font- 
> family:
> > ...."> instead which has no more semantic benefit and is far more  
> difficult
> > to work with.
>
> I'm sorry, I disagree : I can disable document-embedded CSS in
> my browser, if I find a document difficult or impossible
> to read -- I don't believe there is any corresponding proposal
> to allow browser users to specify which sub-set of tags the
> browser should ignore.
>
> Philip Taylor
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 11:04:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT