W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2009

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:35:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2F1BFB.6030907@malform.no>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:49 UTC