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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:22:36 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270906091422t5ff43815h69df3b3079e44b1c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>wrote:

> 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
>
> Or, here's the single page W3C version.
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/#parsing-main-inbody
>

As others have mentioned in this thread, implied by Sam's choice of example,
and my own test with validator.nu, it does seem as if the use of FONT
generates conformance error, and therefore has been obsoleted in HTML 5,
though it is not among the obsolete elements.

That section is, itself, curious. Rather than provide a warning about lack
of support in browsers in the future, the section actually provides details
in how user agents should process the obsolete elements for
"interoperability". After first telling authors not to use the element.

The element is obsolete -- why should HTML 5 care? It's obsolete, why would
we be worried about interoperability?

Am I missing something here? The section defies logic.

Shelley

It seems to me by doing so, there is no smooth transition between HTML 4 and
HTML 5, and I return to my option 4 choice: I think it better for HTML 5 to
just ignore

>
> --
> Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
> http://lachy.id.au/
> http://www.opera.com/
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 21:23:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:04 UTC