Re: What's wrong with <FONT>?

some additions:

>   HTML offers several ways of distinguishing some text from
>"ordinary text"; some by their function (<h1>..<h6>, <em>,
><stong>, <cite>, <address>), and some by their appearance

unfortunately: here functionaliity and appearance are mixed: <h1> text
appears larger than eg <h4> tagged text.
it is a conservative and unacceptable presumption that  'more importance'
or 'higher level' necessarily should result in  'bigger'

>(<i>, <tt>, <b>, <big>, <small>).  Either way has legitimate
>uses: the functional method may be more reliable, but a well-

to make something <big> or <small> is applkying a very ambiguous attribute.
how 'big', how 'small'
if referenced in % or given in absolute terms it would make some sense...

>one of the pre-eminent advantages of HTML documents over print
>media is that they're scalable and configurable--those with 

HTML documents in itself are to date unfortunately not scalable. the only
feature which make them seem scalable is the option of most browsers to set
the body text's default size (or linespacing).
for those, who have the ambition to layout HTML documents for best
legibility & readability this is a very serious drawback.

>body-color tags, and to use my own scheme of black text on 
>yellow background.  Will I see your yellow text at all? 
>probably not, unless I happen to view your HTML source.

i do not think it is of relevance, that the user should be able to set his
own fancy colors...
however i agree that there should be some feature (similar to switching of
'auto loading of images' or  an option for 'greeking' images) where the
HTML document would be displayed in b&w.

>   I have never seen the effects of <FONT FACE= >.  Suffice 
>it to say, that, just because I may have a font on my system 

i agree on the futility of this concept. we should rather support
proposals, where the font face is supported as another <src> tag.

best regards,

andreas schneider

Received on Monday, 13 May 1996 00:33:57 UTC