Message-Id: <199605211749.KAA02946@web1.calweb.com> Subject: Re: Font-style... To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:49:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lee Daniel Crocker" <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> > 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>).