On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:29:26 -1000 david wrote: > Rob Emenecker wrote: > >> No, it is not correct at all. There is no such requirement > >anywhere. > > > > Being "correct" does not mean there "must" exist a requirement, as > > your argument implies. If there is no requirement one way or the > > other, then having a FONT tag is as correct as not having a FONT > > tag. There's no"requirement" for me to wipe my bottom after using > > the toilet, but it certainly is "correct" to do so! ;) > > Jukka's right, there's nothing in the CSS rules that say you *can't* > use formatting in the content itself. But what's the point of using > things like the <font> tag when you're using CSS? It just seems sloppy > to me, like something that my employer's ancient enterprise content > management system might spit out. >
Here's a cheeky solution, especially for the CMS editors that aren't doing their job: http://accessites.org/site/2006/07/big-red-angry-text/ Have a chuckle but don't reply please. 1. its getting OT for this list 2. If you take it too seriously you could loose customers unless they specify CSS compliant code over font, size and color tags. -- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
