- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:35:39 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby On 09-06-08 15.10: > Topic: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 > And yet, HTML5 manages to find a third option: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance-checkers-0 Why does it talk about "transition from HTML4 Transitional documents"? The features are unrelated to HTML 4 transitional. > Even more generally, this is not the only controversial omission. > Before proceeding further on this specific attribute, it makes sense to > address a point that Henri Sivonen brought up: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0127.html > > 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. Henri actually propose a rebirth of <font> as "color-based emphasis". I think we who work for @summary are looking at a "subset definition" as well. May be font can be retained for the colouring purposes Henri describe. But I don't know if /emphasize/ would be the right meaning to attribute to it. If it really is redefined like that, perhaps it should also have a mechanism through which one could learn the name of the colour as well? Should it only allow those colours that have a English names, so that UA can relay the name of the colour? And thus disallow hexadecimal colour names? > 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 a downplayed error at it represents vestigial markup. > 3) It's conformant. > 4) The HTML 5 spec should be silent on this matter. You "failed" to ask about <font face="fontname">, which again, underlines that this is about a redefinition of <font color="name"> I could support a reborn <font>, if properly defined. Thus I think that my option would be 3) for <font color="">. But a 1) if the question was extended to also cover the face attribute. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 02:36:17 UTC