http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-font
The definition of <font> and style='' seems like a compromise that isn't good for either side of the style='' debate. Can it be reconsidered, please?
Using <font style=''> as a block container is less backwards compatible than <div style=''>. (Test case for Gecko DOM Inspector: http://hsivonen.iki.fi/test/wa10/adhoc/block-in-font.html ) Using <font style=''> for the inline case makes a political point but offers no technical benefit over <span style=''> which the guilty tools are already emitting.
Therefore, I suggest allowing style='' on <div> and <span>. OTOH, there's no point in reintroducing <font> if its HTML 3.2-compatible attributes are not conforming.
Furthermore, I suggest allowing style='' on all elements, because only allowing it on <div> and <span> would only move WYSIWYG output even more to the direction of Karl Dubost's caricature of HTML 6.0.
P.S. I don't like style='', either. I just don't think it could be eradicated without giving rise to something equally bad or worse.
P.P.S. On IRC, Tantek Çelik suggested reading the discussions that the XHTML 2.0 folks had on this topic instead of having the same discussions all over again.
-- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
