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

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

From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:47:05 -0500
Message-ID: <bde87dd20705011047v425298a9me1ea101bdc7766a9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
>
> The current phrasing doesn't restrict this to span. It allows "WYSIWYG
>
editors" to produce <p><font size=7>blah</font</p> where <h1>blah</h1> is
> appropriate.


If I understand correctly, even that wouldn't be correct, because the only
attribute specifically allowed on <font> is the "style" attribute.  I don't
personally know of any WYSIWYG editors that use <font style>.  I know of
some that use <font color> and <font size> as well as <span style>  and even
<big> and <small>, but none that use <font style> by default.  As it is, it
looks like the spec is trying to be backward compatible with something, but
I don't know what.

If <font> is allowed, then <font size> could be allowed, because a
server-side script could more easily find <font size=7> and replace it with
<h1>.

Since I'm not aware which editors are being graced by allowing <font>
without "size" or "color".  Hopefully before editors start putting an HTML5
DOCTYPE on HTML files, they'll stop using <font> in favor of something
else.  Until then, they can happily put HTML 4.01 Transition (not even
Strict!) on their documents that include <font>
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 17:47:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:44 UTC