W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

(unknown charset) Re: Bug 7034

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:10:34 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: (unknown charset) public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100324231034506299.ea194c0a@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Kornel Lesinski, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:10:52 +0000:
> On 24 Mar 2010, at 10:17, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> 
>> According to MAMA: [1] 
>> 
>> ]]
>> "Transitional" Doctype flavors dominated over their "strict" and 
>> "frameset" variants by more than 10 to 1.
>> [[
> 
> Not every use of Transitional DOCTYPE equals use of presentational 
> markup. Many authoring tools default to this DOCTYPE regardless of 
> markup used. 
> 
> Authors may choose Transitional and no presentational markup, because 
> Strict is annoyingly too strict in some places, 

Agree.

> e.g. doesn't allow 
> inline markup in <form> or <blockquote> elements (this is fixed in 
> HTML5).

You mean like this: <blockquote><p></blockquote> ? That is strict valid.
 
> This was study of existing markup, which may include very old pages 
> or pages generated by old software. I think we're concerned here more 
> about future development, and acceptance of CSS today is higher than 
> average page on the Internet may suggest.

The acceptance of CSS in my view makes <font> less dangerous today than 
ever before. Conscious authors, like Google, use <font> in tandem with 
CSS. We do not need to forbid <font> in order to make authors use CSS - 
anymore.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:11:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC