david wrote:
> 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.
You just gave a partial answer to your question. When working with
legacy pages, or with pages created with legacy publishing systems,
there's no general reason to get rid of <font> markup. If it does not
cause specific harm, just let it stay, and work on other matters. You
can still use CSS, of course.
In particular, "cleanup" programs that automatically convert
presentational markup to CSS tend to produce more messy results than the
original. Replacing <font> with <span> tends to obscure things (when I
look at <font> markup, I can at least see what is being set, whereas
<span> with a programmatically generated class="foobar" is less
readable).
When creating _new_ pages (or completely rewritten pages) with proper
tools, there's seldom any reason to use <font>, but that's a different
story.
(Personally, I do use <font> when I am actually setting the font and
nothing else, e.g. when writing "in the <font
face="Candara">Candara</font>, consecutive em dashes do not join", but
it's of course a pretty special case when I write _about_ fonts and wish
to illustrate them that way. I don't see how <span> with CSS would be
any improvement here.)
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
______________________________________________________________________
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/
