Re: Font-style...

James Tauber (jtauber@library.uwa.edu.au)
Tue, 21 May 1996 22:42:05 +0800 (WST)


Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:42:05 +0800 (WST)
From: James Tauber <jtauber@library.uwa.edu.au>
To: Warren Steel <mudws@mail.olemiss.edu>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Font-style...
In-Reply-To: <199605211340.IAA05422@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960521222316.13929A-100000@docker.library.uwa.edu.au>


On Tue, 21 May 1996, Warren Steel wrote:
> But the truly harmful
> effects of <FONT> are reserved for the browsers that *do*
> recognize it.  The concept was flawed from the start, its
> implementation is broken in current browsers, and it will
> be obsolete in a few months.  Instead of "enshrining" it
> in a specification, it should be rejected or deprecated in
> the strongest terms.  It is time for the members of the W3C
> to cut their losses and minimize their embarrassment over
> this unrealistic and unsuccessful addition to HTML, which
> results in such a loss in communication over the Web!

Well put! I couldn't agree more.

Even if <FONT> must stay in HTML 3.2 on the grounds that HTML 3.2 is 
describing current practice, can we at least have two levels of HTML 3.2, 
one without <FONT>.

And, can we *please* *please* *please* add a 'type' attribute to <div> a la 
TEI? This won't break anything but will do absolute wonders for those of 
us who still believe in structured documents.

James K. Tauber / jtauber@library.uwa.edu.au
University CWIS Coordination Officer
The University of Western Australia