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

Re: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:09:40 -0700
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1003291409r2e6295c9u8a7291e071820803@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> Banning <font> in general, rather than, say, only when used in a way that
>> actually harms accessibility, is analogous to this reasoning. By having the
>> blanket ban, we avoid the presumed negative externality, without having to
>> closely inquire about the particular circumstances of each use. The latter
>> requires too much judgment for a conformance checker.
>
> Why does this not imply that style="" should be an error as well?  The
> spec gives reasons for why not all inline presentational markup is
> banned, but I see no reason given for why only style="" was kept, and
> not other presentational markup as well.

(Clipped the rest, but I think this sums up the email.)

The answer is, basically, we need @style.  Even if every
presentational element and attribute that has ever existed was
allowed, we'd still need @style.  Simplifying and just sucking all the
use-cases into @style simplifies things a bit.

It also has some side benefits, such as making authors aware that they
are using CSS to do this styling, leading them to use CSS elsewhere.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 29 March 2010 21:10:26 UTC

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