- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 01:52:54 +0200
- To: <public-html@w3.org>, <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
At 15:01 -0700 UTC, on 2007-04-30, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: [...] > Note that although the WHATWG spec requires UAs to > support FONT, it makes it non-conformant for documents except those > created by a WYSIWYG editor. And even that aspect is in dispute. Yeah, I meant to ask about <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-presentational.html#the-font>. What's the argument for making <font> conforming? I can't think of a good reason. What's even more weird is the idea to consider content non-/conforming depending on how it was authored. I can't believe the implications of that were given serious thought. (Not to mention specifically granting wannabe 'WYSIWYG' editors special status. WYSIWYG has nothing to do with the Web -- people wildly disagree over what "WYSIWYG" means in the context of the Web. So even if there is some sound argument behind allowing <font>, tying it to some undefined tool is useless -- at best everyone authoring <font> will bother to claim to be a WYSIWG editor.) -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 23:57:52 UTC