- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:10:34 +0100
- To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Kornel Lesinski, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:10:52 +0000: > On 24 Mar 2010, at 10:17, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> >> According to MAMA: [1] >> >> ]] >> "Transitional" Doctype flavors dominated over their "strict" and >> "frameset" variants by more than 10 to 1. >> [[ > > Not every use of Transitional DOCTYPE equals use of presentational > markup. Many authoring tools default to this DOCTYPE regardless of > markup used. > > Authors may choose Transitional and no presentational markup, because > Strict is annoyingly too strict in some places, Agree. > e.g. doesn't allow > inline markup in <form> or <blockquote> elements (this is fixed in > HTML5). You mean like this: <blockquote><p></blockquote> ? That is strict valid. > This was study of existing markup, which may include very old pages > or pages generated by old software. I think we're concerned here more > about future development, and acceptance of CSS today is higher than > average page on the Internet may suggest. The acceptance of CSS in my view makes <font> less dangerous today than ever before. Conscious authors, like Google, use <font> in tandem with CSS. We do not need to forbid <font> in order to make authors use CSS - anymore. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:11:08 UTC