- 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>
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
harmful.)
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 10:43:16 UTC