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

Re: <font> (was Support Existing Content)

From: Denis Boudreau (WebConforme) <dboudreau@webconforme.com>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:41:50 -0400
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <82C674A0-423F-4839-99B5-FD538AB1AD23@webconforme.com>

Morning all,

> On 1 maj 2007, at 01.52, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I meant to ask about
>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ 
>> section-presentational.html#the-font>.
>> What's the argument for making <font> conforming? I can't think of  
>> a good
>> reason.
>
> Me neither.

/worried mode on

Same here... what would be the point? Haven't we seen enough damage  
already, especially whereas accessibility is concerned? I do have a  
few questions that absolutely bother me and to which I'd sure love  
some answers from the veterans on this list...

We've come a long way from the chaos of 1990 HTML into a structured,  
presentation-separated approach to HTML where the language served as  
a tool to structure information only - I believe everyone can agree  
to that. To me, that was an amazing improvement. So how can we even  
seriously consider going back, on stuff like bringing back  
presentationnal tags into a structured language, or the interest of  
separation between structure and presentation? What does this mean?  
That all of a sudden, we're questionning the relevancy of CSS?

For those of you who have been in such working groups before for  
xhtml or html even, do these kind of suggestions always come forth?  
With a group of 300+ individuals, of course we'll have all kinds of  
points of view. Is it a normal process to question everything, like  
we're doing now?

Outside this group, what I'm beginning to see are people worried over  
the gossip that come out of these discussions and whether or not we  
people have lost it. Accessibility experts, among others are flipping  
out. Taking out headers and summary? I mean come on...

If this is just a natural process and we enjoy the confrontation of  
ideas, fine that's great - these discussions ARE interesting. But if  
"improving html" somehow means bringing back in stuff we pulled out  
before for very valid reasons or reconsidering the very foundation of  
the language, then I'm seriously starting to worry... Will we have to  
wait until the draft falls on Karl Dubost's lap to realize we're  
jeopardizing another standard by going our route?

I do not even pretend I read eveything cause there's just too much.  
I'm doing my best to grab the important info here and there and the  
above questions are just my interpretation of the moment. I also  
believe that if I'm hearing this, then others might be hearing this  
as well. It might be important to come clear on these topics and see  
exactly where we stand at this point.

/worried mode off

Have a great day. These discussions are fascinating.


--
Denis Boudreau,
Directeur

WebConforme / AccessibilitéWeb
1751 rue Richardson, bureau 3.501
Montréal (Qc), Canada  H3K 1G6

Téléphone : +1 514-448-2650
Télécopieur : +1 514.667.2216
dboudreau@webconforme.com
blackberry@webconforme.com
http://www.webconforme.com/

======// À méditer //=======
Les choses changent plus lentement que l’on pense. La rapidité
des changements technologiques est tempérée par la lenteur de
leur acceptation sociale. (Michel Cartier)
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 13:42:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC