W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2009

Re: <font color="blue"> (was ISSUE-32)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:35:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2EAB86.7030507@malform.no>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt On 09-06-09 19.22:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Lachlan, you misread my statement. I was referring to elements that have
>> been made obsolete in the HTML5, or that have never existed. The
>> "non-conforming" elements. It was a general statement.
> 
> I was responding to this statement of yours, which seemed to indicate 
> that you thought the font element must not be supported.  Sorry if I've 
> misunderstood.
> 
> "According to the HTML 5 spec, FONT could then be non-conformant, which 
> means, if I read the HTML 5 spec correctly, user agents _must not_ 
> support the element."
> 
>> As for font element, I see the section on rendering, but I can't find
>> the parsing section. Do you have a direct link? I looked to see if it
>> was still deprecated, but just can't find anything about this.
> 
> Search this section for occurrences of "font".  This is the multipage 
> version, so it shouldn't crash your browser like the single page.
> 
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#parsing-main-inbody 

Perhaps the crux is that that the draft has a section about 
obsolete features[1]. However, <font> is not among them. (However, 
validator.nu still considers <font> obsoleted, so if Validator.nu 
is a user agent, then ...)

Another point, related to what Sam asked, is that the draft has 
not said very much about @summary - unlike what is the case for 
<font>. It should define how @summary fits into the DOM, 
regardless of whether the @summary stays conformant or becomes 
obsoleted or deprecated.

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-xhtml-syntax.html#obsolete-features 

-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 18:36:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:38 GMT