Re: Font-style...

Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Tue, 21 May 1996 10:49:35 -0700 (PDT)


Message-Id: <199605211749.KAA02946@web1.calweb.com>
Subject: Re: Font-style...
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Lee Daniel Crocker" <lcrocker@calweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <199605211340.IAA05422@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu> from "Warren Steel" at May 21, 96 08:46:43 am
From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>

> The concept [of <font>] 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!

It has been pointed out by W3C members that they are
reluctant to include a feature that hasn't been "tested"
by use in real applications (particularly browsers).  I
can understand this point of view, though I happen to
disagree with it.  A problem, though, comes with this
point of view added to the idea of issuing "descriptive"
standards.  If standards are descriptive, and new features
aren't added until they're already implemented, then how
is it possible to handle an experiment that fails?

Some room must be made in the process for removing and/or
deprecating things that didn't work, and/or adding things
that haven't been done, or else there's no way to converge
toward quality.  At this point, in the infancy of the Web,
now is the time to break things if things must be broken;
so let us not be afraid to completely remove those things
that were failed experiments (like <font> and <frameset>),
and add the features needed for expansion that may not be
implemented yet (CSS w/frames, <object>).