On 6/12/09 8:51 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Authors won't gain much by us deprecating<font>. Other than when they > read HTML tutorials that list all the elements of HTML, or all in a > particular category. The cost of a large language is definitely > non-zero, even if the implementation cost isn't affected. > > > But what we would gain is removing largely redundant parts of the > spec. > It's not redundant at all. I explained why already. > If we keep stylistic elements in the language, why should we stop at > <font> and @color. Why not add @border-radios on<p> and @text-shadow > on all elements? If a UA decided a border-radius attribute was worth doing, and we felt pressure to implement it, why wouldn't we? It's not as if there are a lot competing definitions of "border-radius". >> Keep UA conformance requirements, and write a document for lint tools after >> they've competed for a while. imho, the grave concern over preventing typos >> looks like a dishonest way of justifying central control. The technical >> benefits they might provide are really small, if at all present--it smells >> bad. >> > > That'd certainly be another way of doing it. The only difference seems > to be that instead of us defining here what is valid and what isn't, > we'd leave it up to the community. > This entire debate concerns whether "validity" is an important concept. In the context of exhaustive UA requirements, it certainly isn't. Not that it ever has been. - Rob
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 01:08:39 UTC