RE: <font color="blue"> (was ISSUE-32)

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> So, as a first step, can I get people to express opinions on which of
> the following should apply to <font color="blue">:
> 
> 1) It's a conformance error, such as it is today in HTML 5.
> 2) It's a downplayed error at it represents vestigial markup.
> 3) It's conformant.
> 4) The HTML 5 spec should be silent on this matter.
> 

1) What is the cost of this non-conformance?  What negative action or
effect are we likely to see or experience from web browsers today, and
into the future?  Given my choice of adding accessibility features such as
@longdesc and @summary to HTML5 documents vs. "conformance", what exactly
tips the scale towards "conformance" rather than my desire to produce as
an accessible document as I can (which would include using existing HTML4
features that are supported by both browsers and AT today)?

2) This appears to be the status quo today.

3) Given that other "display-only" elements continue to exist today in
HTML5 (<b> [http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-b-element], <i>
[http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-i-element]) why should
this be any different?  

5) Head in the sand response. 


Given these options and current statuses, I suggest option 3.  After all,
HTML5 seeks to afford authors the ability to create conformant code ("HTML
5 document conformance requirements should be designed so that Web content
can degrade gracefully in older or less capable user agents, even when
making use of new elements, attributes, APIs and content models."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#degrade-gracefully)

JF

Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 18:36:14 UTC