- From: James Tauber <jtauber@library.uwa.edu.au>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:42:05 +0800 (WST)
- To: Warren Steel <mudws@mail.olemiss.edu>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Tue, 21 May 1996, Warren Steel wrote: > But the truly harmful > effects of <FONT> are reserved for the browsers that *do* > recognize it. The concept was flawed from the start, its > implementation is broken in current browsers, and it will > be obsolete in a few months. Instead of "enshrining" it > in a specification, it should be rejected or deprecated in > the strongest terms. It is time for the members of the W3C > to cut their losses and minimize their embarrassment over > this unrealistic and unsuccessful addition to HTML, which > results in such a loss in communication over the Web! Well put! I couldn't agree more. Even if <FONT> must stay in HTML 3.2 on the grounds that HTML 3.2 is describing current practice, can we at least have two levels of HTML 3.2, one without <FONT>. And, can we *please* *please* *please* add a 'type' attribute to <div> a la TEI? This won't break anything but will do absolute wonders for those of us who still believe in structured documents. James K. Tauber / jtauber@library.uwa.edu.au University CWIS Coordination Officer The University of Western Australia
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 1996 10:42:18 UTC