[whatwg] <font> (was Support Existing Content)

[Sander Tekelenburg]

At 15:01 -0700 UTC, on 2007-04-30, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

[...]

> Note that although the WHATWG spec requires UAs to
> support FONT, it makes it non-conformant for documents except those
> created by a WYSIWYG editor. And even that aspect is in dispute.

Yeah, I meant to ask about
<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-presentational.html#the-font>.
What's the argument for making <font> conforming? I can't think of a good
reason.

What's even more weird is the idea to consider content non-/conforming
depending on how it was authored. I can't believe the implications of that
were given serious thought. (Not to mention specifically granting wannabe
'WYSIWYG' editors special status. WYSIWYG has nothing to do with the Web --
people wildly disagree over what "WYSIWYG" means in the context of the Web.
So even if there is some sound argument behind allowing <font>, tying it to
some undefined tool is useless -- at best everyone authoring <font> will
bother to claim to be a WYSIWG editor.)


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>