W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Multiple Text Decoration Values

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:41:40 +1000
Message-ID: <40E4AF44.60106@iinet.net.au>
To: Matthew.van.Eerde@hbinc.com
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Matthew.van.Eerde@hbinc.com wrote:
> Microsoft Internet Explorer doesn't support either HTML's <blink> or CSS2's
> text-decoration: blink - this puts a severe crimp on anyone that would like
> to use it.

   Wow! Not supporting blink is one microsoft decision I support. I 
assumed it did, but since I never used it, I never realized.

> People who really want blinking text use animated .gif's.

   Actually, people are using more flash to achieve animations, but 
usually this is done by graphic artists who actually have some sense of 
style, and make it less annoying than than just plain blink.

> I do.  If authors want to blink things, it's much more convenient for them
> to use text-blink than ... an animated .gif...  Ironically it's probably
> easier for users to deal with text-blink than to have to deal with an
> animated .gif.
> It would be nice if user agents put in a "don't blink text" checkbox that
> users could set to their liking.  I realize that may be asking a bit much
> for what is currently a non-issue though.

   Using text-blink does have it's advantages over animated gifs or 
flash because a user can simply place this in a user style sheet, (for 
those UAs that support it).
* { text-blink: none !important; }

   But then, Mozilla, and maybe other UAs, can stop animated gifs. 
Chris Pederick's Web Developer toolbar gives that option.

   However, most users either can't, or don't know how to do that; but 
then if the option was included in an options dialog and most users had 
blinking disabled, those few designers would probably go back to using 
animated gifs to achieve the desired effect anyway, since they care more 
about presentation than content and accessibility.

   So, I vote to have it removed, or at least deprecated.  The only 
reason I can see for it's inclusion is to support the non-standard, 
mostly unused <blink> element via a standard style sheet property.

Lachlan Hunt

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 20:43:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:14 UTC