have a good day
The font element doesn't represent anything. It must not be used
except by WYSIWYG editors, which may use it to achieve presentational
affects. Even WYSIWYG editors, however, should make every effort to
use appropriate semantic markup and avoid the use of media-specific
<meta name="generator" content="Sample Editor 1.0 (WYSIWYG editor)">
<font style="display: block; border: solid">
Well, that works for me...
> The font element doesn't represent anything.
Please tell me you're making this up!
Oh no... you _are_ quoting the "HTML 5" draft.
> It must not be used except by WYSIWYG editors,
Cool... so everyone and his brother will regard themselves as WYSIWYG
> <font style="display: block; border: solid">
> Well, that works for me...
Oh yeah... and since probably no existing WYSIWYG editor spits out
_that_ kind of half-digested tag soup, it must be an encouragement into
writing such tools.
There's really no reason to exclude, deprecate, or abjure the <font>
element or to pretend it's nothing, or that it doesn't represent
anything. It has a simple meaning and some reasonable use (namely when
discussing fonts or when reproducing printed or digital documents so
that their original appearance is to be retained as far as possible) and
lots of nonsense use. But people who use tags nonsensically won't stop
doing so just because some specification says they shouldn't use those
tags at all - especially if the same specification requires that browser
support those tags forever.
The sadest thing about "HTML 5" is that it will be impossible to create
an April fool's joke about HTML this year - they've already done that.
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
I'm waiting for the day when a WYSIWYG HTML editor is one that doesn't
have menu options for font family, size, color, or underlining at all
(though Strong and Emphasized are OK) and will only allow classes and
IDs to be assigned (creating SPANs when the selected text is something
other than the entire content of an element. A separate CSS editor, of
course, will need to be included.
Thanks for the link.
Actually I'm very pleased taking into account that it is an early
variant. There is still a lot "Semantical Web" and simply "academical
mind" crap to clean up for the final recommendation: but overall it
does follow the "December Revolution" and its principles as spelled in
"HTML Design Principles" (see
iframe, target for a - just a few random chosen samples. btw on adding
target they lost "title" attribute for a - so the specs are still
buggy and a lot of work to do.
Still it is very nice to see W3C coming back to the reality from years
That would be a fine thing. Of course, it would only be used by the
subset of the people who know not only *what* they want, but *why* they
want it. For everyone else, there will still have to be the WYSIWYW
editor that gives them what they want without their having to know
The above is a perfect example. I emphasised "why" without knowing
precisely why I did so, I just knew it required emphasising.
I'm all in favour of systems that enforce the standards. I can't wait
for the day when exceeding the speed limit in your car will be
physically impossible, because the onboard nanny chip knows where you
are. The one I really want, though, is the car that will refuse to
proceed across a pedestrian crossing when there is a pedestrian waiting.
I noticed that this chip is already fitted to cars in Germany. Either
that, or German drivers are outstandingly courteous/considerate.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
Why We Won't Help You:
Ah, but this opens up the door of "A fool and his money are soon parted"
for those wishing to get rich quick. :-)