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

Rob Sayre wrote:
> On 6/9/09 10:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>> On 6/9/09 6:02 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> Why reference the Mozilla API? I'm assuming because it drives the
>>>> Mozilla editor, as well as the browser, which puts the API into the
>>>> conforming author territory, while still being part of a user agent.
>>> That's a good point. Just more fallout from the ridiculous author 
>>> conformance requirements. Pseudo-intellectual ideas about "semantic 
>>> markup" just don't buy you that much as requirements.
>>> Like anything else, some HTML files are better crafted than others, 
>>> but conformance requirements should address showstoppers.
>> Are there MUSTs in the current spec that the Mozilla foundation is 
>> unlikely to ever implement?  Can they be identified specifically?
> Yes, most of the authoring requirements are meaningless or at least 
> pointless. I hope you can forgive me for failing to produce an 
> exhaustive list, but the subject of this message is a good example.

Just to be clear: the subject of this messages is an example of 
something that absolutely prevent one or more products that aspires to 
be HTML 5 conformant from ever being so?  Do I have this correct?  Do 
others at Mozilla agree?  Do others at other browser vendors agree?  Do 
other non-browser tool vendors agree?

In the case of planet Venus, I can certainly implement an XSLT 
stylesheet that transforms fonts into the style element equivalent, so 
this is not a showstopper for me.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 11:32:32 UTC