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

Lachlan Hunt On 09-06-09 19.22:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Lachlan, you misread my statement. I was referring to elements that have
>> been made obsolete in the HTML5, or that have never existed. The
>> "non-conforming" elements. It was a general statement.
> I was responding to this statement of yours, which seemed to indicate 
> that you thought the font element must not be supported.  Sorry if I've 
> misunderstood.
> "According to the HTML 5 spec, FONT could then be non-conformant, which 
> means, if I read the HTML 5 spec correctly, user agents _must not_ 
> support the element."
>> As for font element, I see the section on rendering, but I can't find
>> the parsing section. Do you have a direct link? I looked to see if it
>> was still deprecated, but just can't find anything about this.
> Search this section for occurrences of "font".  This is the multipage 
> version, so it shouldn't crash your browser like the single page.

Perhaps the crux is that that the draft has a section about 
obsolete features[1]. However, <font> is not among them. (However, still considers <font> obsoleted, so if 
is a user agent, then ...)

Another point, related to what Sam asked, is that the draft has 
not said very much about @summary - unlike what is the case for 
<font>. It should define how @summary fits into the DOM, 
regardless of whether the @summary stays conformant or becomes 
obsoleted or deprecated. 

leif halvard silli

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 18:36:29 UTC