Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

Iain Wilkie Logan (iainlogan@enterprise.net)
Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:12:19 +0100 (BST)


Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:12:19 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Wilkie Logan <iainlogan@enterprise.net>
To: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <l03110700b045c096672c@[192.168.1.117]>
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.26-0917211219-d07krWe@iainlogan.enterprise.net>
Subject: Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

On Wed 17 Sep, Jordan Reiter wrote:
> You felt an urge to reveal at 3:52 PM -0500 on 1997-09-16:

[..]

Remaining on the topic of visual browsers ...

> Using SIZE or COLOR attributes also imply certain platforms--platforms
> which support color, and platforms which support displaying of fonts at
> different sizes.  And most of platforms that support these, have fonts
> within their system.  The FACE attribute, unlike the color tag, is
> completely degradable (as opposed to the color attribute, which may reflect
> the intent of the web designer to make text appear distinct from the
> background--if it does degrade, sometimes the color of the text is
> identical to the color of the background.)

Agreed. I just hit an example of that this afternoon, on a publicly funded
site. I had to switch to my default colours to read the information I
wanted!

> Most platforms that support size changes and color changes in fonts share
> common fonts anyway, such as Courier.  You can also use the font color to
> make your page unreadable.  Heck!  You can even make your page unreadable
> by using perfectly acceptable, HTML compliant markup:
> 
> <!--
> So this is a paragraph that talks about something important, okay?
> -->
> 
> Voila!  Unreadable.

QED!

> Besides, Netscape offered the use of various fonts, so
> that they could be cross-platform (I always used about three or four
> different varieties, just to be safe).

The only concern I would have is where the use of FACE would render the
affected text meaningless on platforms where the font is not available -
certain symbol fonts might come into that category for example.

OTOH, if somebody overrode my preference for the elegant Helvetica with
something graunchy like Arial, that would be just a minor annoyance I could
live with.

> I don't think the inherent worseness of the FACE attribute vs. SIZE & COLOR
> falls under the anybrowser discussion, since color and size can't be seen
> in any browser anyway.  I'm not here to defend proprietary tags.  I just
> don't see how a claim can be made that any attributes in the FONT element
> were any more "anybrowser" than another.
 
Apart from my reservations above, I'm inclined to agree with that too.

I wonder when they'll get around to <SMELZ>. That could be even more fun
than <MARQUEE> ;-)

All the best,

Iain

-- 

Iain Logan, Langholm, Dumfriesshire - Chartered Transport Consultant
<http://homepages.enterprise.net/iainlogan/>
<mailto:iainlogan@enterprise.net>