W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Most compatible, non-stupid ways to style text

From: Monica Moen <monica@spsp.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:16:04 -0800
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009301c2d9f6$d2c763e0$0acf5fcc@brad>
I'm confused.  And I guess maybe there are a couple of issues here.  Why
W3c would strike the FONT attribute/tag in itself is beyond me because
is a commonly used tag and commonly used word for that matter in the
whole sense of formatting text/character.not just in HTML.  Most
publishing applications and word processing apps refer to formatting
text/character as "font" formatting.IT MAKE SENSE.  However, I think the
other issue is that certain elements of that attribute are depreciated
and should be named obsolete for good reasons.browser compatibility and
what not.  But to strike the actual tag all together is a separate
issue.  I use the font tag in conjunction with style sheets when I want
to format a font within the HTML document.   It's all how you approach
it.  With the use of stylesheets, the FONT attribute (or tag if you
will) should be considered as just a container of text/characters for
formatting and elements should be defined in stylesheets.  The
web-editor (if they want to be W3C compliant) would then make sure the
elements are compliant.  This should have nothing to do with the tag
itself.  If a web editor is not using stylesheets to format, it's their
loss.  But don't get rid of the  FONT tag .. p l e a s e.  
Is anyone on the same page as I?
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 15:15:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:02 UTC