- 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