- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:35:50 +0200
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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. > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/syntax.html#parsing-main-inbody Perhaps the crux is that that the draft has a section about obsolete features[1]. However, <font> is not among them. (However, validator.nu still considers <font> obsoleted, so if Validator.nu 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. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-xhtml-syntax.html#obsolete-features -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 18:36:29 UTC