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 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:31 UTC