Re: What's wrong with <FONT>?

Scott E. Preece (preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com)
Sat, 11 May 1996 22:20:33 -0500


Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 22:20:33 -0500
From: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Message-Id: <199605120320.WAA29959@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: mudws@mail.olemiss.edu
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: Warren Steel's message of Fri, 10 May 1996 22:45:24 -0500
Subject: Re: What's wrong with <FONT>? 

   From: Warren Steel <mudws@mail.olemiss.edu>

|   >  If you say that a document is just words and that it is
|   >equivalent in any displayed form, thousands of years of human history
|   >say you're wrong.
|
|       Thousands of years?  Did David choose his fonts? or Homer, Sappho,
|   Confucius, Dante, or Chaucer?  These all lived before the advent of 
|   printing, and had little control over any manuscripts that circulated
|   even in their own time. ...
---

Eh? While all of those authors did not choose their own fonts, the
people who prepared them for publication (or, in earlier days, copied
them out for distribution) certainly did agonize over the appropriate
form for presentation.  One could belabor the point by wondering whether
Homer's words would be with us now if he had been in the habit of
presenting his tale in an uninflected monotone.

People who think typography doesn't matter probably also believe that
authors don't really need editors and that full-text searching can be a
satisfactory substitute for competent indexing.  They're wrong.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com