W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2007

[whatwg] <font>

From: Adrian Lynch <adrian@millstream.com.au>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:13:36 +0800
Message-ID: <36DA6DAB-5341-4B21-96EA-5597FCCA143B@millstream.com.au>
Hello,

I have been following the discussion on the use of font tags for  
WYSIWYG editors. Just thought I'd post some thoughts as a CMS vendor,  
hope they are not out of place. Hope this isn't a double post, my  
first attempt was moderated.

On 03/05/2007, at 4:48 AM, Adrian Sutton wrote:

> That's not to
> discourage the spec from going after the most ideal solution, but  
> if we want
> the spec to be useful we do need to consider the impact these  
> decisions have
> in the real world.

I am not sure I see how removing the <font> tag from the rest of the  
spec, but allowing it for vendors using WYSIWYG editors is logical.

I am sure there are just as many ingrained CMS's producing <font>  
tags in their output without using a WYSIWYG editor - they will need  
to be modified to meet specification, but WYSIWYG editors get a  
reprieve? Surely making a WYSIWYG editor remove font tags is no  
harder than any other system. Or am I seeing it from the wrong angle?

> I wish you the best of luck with that project (no sarcasm  
> intended). To date
> I have seen numerous people try and fail. In our editors we're  
> trying to
> find ways to make it easier for people to generate semantic content  
> and
> leave the presentation to the stylesheet, but we still haven't  
> managed to
> get rid of the allure of the font menu. We'll keep trying though.

Our CMS disallows any font menu/tags at all, has done for about 18  
months. Sure some clients question it initially, but after an  
explanation of the benefits no client has requested the feature be  
added back in.

Regards,

Adrian Lynch
adrian at adrianlynch.id.au
http://adrianlynch.id.au
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 20:13:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:55 UTC