- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:18:19 +0200
- To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:23, Rob Sayre wrote: > On 2/5/09 12:13 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:04, Rob Sayre wrote: >> >>> Leaving it in is no worse than the status quo, it would be hard to >>> claim that it's been a source of incompatibilities, and other >>> specs depend on it. >>> >>> Hardly seems worth debating, to be honest. >> >> Should also <font> be conforming in HTML5? > > Yes, to the extent that it is interoperable. IMHO. I have no idea > which attribute values for the element are recognized by each major > implementation, for example. I have previously mildly advocated for making <font color='...'> conforming. It is the thing that has pre-existing GUI authoring tool support for doing color-based emphasis. (Making a class for <strong> and defining a CSS rule is much harder for authors who want to make some words red and be done with it.) I haven't dared to suggest making the face and size attributes conforming, and I think CSS, <small> and <big> are more appropriate for the use cases addressed by the face and size attributes. Anyway my point here is that <font color> is interoperable in browsers, actually has an effect (unlike profile usually), has tool support and is less crufty than the realistic GUI tool alternative (<span style="color: ...;">) but yet is has been made non-conforming for largely ideological reasons (<span style="color: ...;"> is no more accessible than <font color='...'>). If the WG wishes to develop a general policy for assessing the adoption of HTML 4.01 features into HTML5, I think applying the policy to <font color='...'> is a good test. > Of course, leaving this unspecified is no worse than the status quo. That's a pretty low bar. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 09:19:02 UTC