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

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

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:07:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4A32FBEF.3050708@mozilla.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On 6/12/09 8:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Authors won't gain much by us deprecating<font>. Other than when they
> read HTML tutorials that list all the elements of HTML, or all in a
> particular category. The cost of a large language is definitely
> non-zero, even if the implementation cost isn't affected.
>
>
> But what we would gain is removing largely redundant parts of the
> spec.
>    

It's not redundant at all. I explained why already.

> If we keep stylistic elements in the language, why should we stop at
> <font>  and @color. Why not add @border-radios on<p>  and @text-shadow
> on all elements?

If a UA decided a border-radius attribute was worth doing, and we felt 
pressure to implement it, why wouldn't we? It's not as if there are a 
lot competing definitions of "border-radius".

>> Keep UA conformance requirements, and write a document for lint tools after
>> they've competed for a while. imho, the grave concern over preventing typos
>> looks like a dishonest way of justifying central control. The technical
>> benefits they might provide are really small, if at all present--it smells
>> bad.
>>      
>
> That'd certainly be another way of doing it. The only difference seems
> to be that instead of us defining here what is valid and what isn't,
> we'd leave it up to the community.
>    

This entire debate concerns whether "validity" is an important concept. 
In the context of exhaustive UA requirements, it certainly isn't. Not 
that it ever has been.

- Rob
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 01:08:39 UTC

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