- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:07:40 -0800
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net>
At 2:46 PM +0000 11/17/00, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>Overall, the full list of irreverent anachronous presentational elements
>that would best be served by CSS are:-
><b>, <i>, <hr />, <tables> (sometimes, for layout), <basefont>, <font>,
><frame> (possibly), <s>, <strike>, & <u>.
Any intelligent user agent which understands CSS can render any of these
obsolete elements as easily as it can render CSS. And, in fact, many
user agents which don't understand CSS (or don't FULLY understand CSS)
can render these just fine.
There is nothing inherently more or less accessible in, for example,
using <basefont> instead of <style> body { font-family } </style>.
Except, of course, that <basefont> enjoys slightly more support in the
real world at present.
I worry that a dogmatic insistence on specific tags -- which -can- be
understood by web browsers -- may cloud the issues which are more
complex than simply "don't use those tags, they're bad and CSS is the
one true way."
--Kynn
--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Saturday, 18 November 2000 02:26:56 UTC