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

RE: FW: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:42:42 +0200
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100331124242518392.e9b38245@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Larry Masinter, Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:10:14 -0700:
> Sorry if I was being terse but I think you flipped a sign bit.

> I don't think there was sufficient justification for changing
> features that were deprecated in HTML4 into non-conforming
> in HTML5 if
> * They are widely implemented (consistently)
> * They are widely used
> Even if there are (arguably) better ways of accomplishing
> the same task. So I favor leaving <font> as deprecated
> (which I think is the formal term for "obsolete but
> conforming"), or possibly just giving up and leaving it
> conforming.

OK. Then we have pretty shared view on this! I guess I misinterpreted 
what you said here, then:

>>(a) I would argue against making any previously valid content invalid
>>      unless
>> (1) it was never implemented as specified
>> (2) there is demonstrable harm to others that making the feature
>>     invalid will repair.
     [ snipped a distracting paragraph ]
>> I would argue that presentational markup don't meet these criteria.

(Snipping that paragraph helped ...)

> See, for example, my 1996 tutorial on "the state of web standards"
> http://larry.masinter.net/www5stds.pdf#page=64
> (page 64, or for the ISO 32000 wary:
>  http://spectral.mscs.mu.edu/standards/all.html)
> I don't think the arguments have changed much
> in the last 14 years.

No ... But I don't think that <font> has the I18N problems that it had, 
originally. (It was those problems that made it being considered 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 10:43:16 UTC

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