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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:14 UTC