Old HTML?

[Phillip Mann]

From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
understanding that the old html don't work anymore.

Is this true just for some people in this newsgroup or is it
universal?

Phil

www.BluegrassBanjo.com
www.BluegrassBanjo.org

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
understanding that the old html don't work anymore.

It will still "work", for some value of "work." Would you not care to
take advantage of, for example, search engine rating headings higher
than regular text?

<p><font size=+2>How about ease of maintenance?</font></p>

Is this true just for some people in this newsgroup or is it
universal?

Well, the more people that tune in here and find out they are still
writing 1996 markup, and update their style, the better the web will be
in the future.

Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?

 

[Phillip Mann]

Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?

Man, I'm REALLY in trouble. I drive a 1995 Toyota pickup.<G>

Phil

www.BluegrassBanjo.com
www.BluegrassBanjo.org

 

[dorayme]

Man, I'm REALLY in trouble. I drive a 1995 Toyota pickup.<G>

That is not an answer. Here is something closer:

"Yes, I prefer driving my old 1971 Ford than a 2007 car".

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Man, I'm REALLY in trouble. I drive a 1995 Toyota pickup.<G>

Less than two years ago I retired my 1976 Triumph.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Man, I'm REALLY in trouble. I drive a 1995 Toyota pickup.<G>

That's newer than my pickup by a year. But I write 2007 code.

 

[asdf]

It will still "work", for some value of "work." Would you not care to
take advantage of, for example, search engine rating headings higher
than regular text?

<p><font size=+2>How about ease of maintenance?</font></p>


Well, the more people that tune in here and find out they are still
writing 1996 markup, and update their style, the better the web will be
in the future.

Would you rather drive a 1996 car, or a 2007 car?

....the 1996 car was easier and cheaper to maintain and repair than the 2007
model. :|

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Phillip Mann:

From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
understanding that the old html don't work anymore.

Oh, _you_ are the person (or entity) who sent my cryptic email with the
heading "html".

If you are not a troll, please find a decent book on web design and read it,
before a) posting to HTML related groups and b) trying to do any work on web
pages. And before posting anything to Usenet, find some of the nice "how do
I post to Usenet" pages and read it.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure

Thank you for the bogosity alert.

 

[JohnW-Mpls]

From all the messages about "font size" vs "h's", it's my
understanding that the old html don't work anymore.

Is this true just for some people in this newsgroup or is it
universal?

Phil

The good old <font> tag is deprecated which means something else is
preferred. However, browsers dare not ignore it - far too deeply
embedded in too many files. The use of css code is recommended but
that always takes up more space for no technical advantage.

Compared to the H's, the font tag does not add vertical spaces.
As others have said, though, the H's get higher recognition by search
engines.

-
JohnW-Mpls

 

[Peter J Ross]

In alt.html on Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:41:59 -0500, JohnW-Mpls

The good old <font> tag is deprecated which means something else is
preferred. However, browsers dare not ignore it - far too deeply
embedded in too many files. The use of css code is recommended but
that always takes up more space for no technical advantage.

How does a single CSS rule, in a file referenced from a single line in
each HTML page, take up more space than dozens or millions of
identical <font> tags?

I suppose you could convert every <p><font> to <p style="font"> to get
the results you describe, but I don't think many people do that.

 

[Sherm Pendley]

The good old <font> tag is deprecated which means something else is
preferred. However, browsers dare not ignore it - far too deeply
embedded in too many files. The use of css code is recommended but
that always takes up more space for no technical advantage.

Wrong on both counts - CSS streamlines and shrinks markup, and separating
presentation from content is certainly a technical advantage.

Compared to the H's, the font tag does not add vertical spaces.

Neither "tag" (sic) adds vertical space. HTML is not a layout language -
that's why <font> was deprecated to begin with.

Respectfully, you may want to learn HTML before trying to teach it.

sherm--

 

[Blinky the Shark]

In alt.html on Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:41:59 -0500, JohnW-Mpls


How does a single CSS rule, in a file referenced from a single line in
each HTML page, take up more space than dozens or millions of
identical <font> tags?

I suppose you could convert every <p><font> to <p style="font"> to get
the results you describe, but I don't think many people do that.

Perhaps *he* does, though.

 

[Dan]

www.BluegrassBanjo.com
www.BluegrassBanjo.org

Your site is both a commercial entity and a noncommercial organization
at once?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Dan:

Your site is both a commercial entity and a noncommercial organization
at once?

Your question is both irrelevant and based on incorrect assumptions.

Authoritative information on the applicability of top level domain names to
various purposes is freely available on the Web. Consult it especially
before making notes that look like accusations on TLD abuse.

 

[Dan]

Scripsit Dan:

Authoritative information on the applicability of top level domain names to
various purposes is freely available on the Web. Consult it especially
before making notes that look like accusations on TLD abuse.

Like RFC 1591?
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt

COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
companies. This domain has grown very large and there is
concern about the administrative load and system performance
if
the current growth pattern is continued. Consideration is
being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future
commercial registrations in the subdomains.

ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-
government organizations may fit here.

So they're saying that their site is both a "commercial entity /
company" and a "organization that didn't fit anywhere else". I guess
"noncommercial" isn't officially part of the description of .org, but
it's implied by the fact that anything commercial belongs in .com, and
anything in .org is supposed to not fit anywhere else.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Dan:

Like RFC 1591?

If you read it, you'll notice that on the third line it says
"Informational". Do you know what "Informational" means in the RFC language?

Have you any idea of how TLDs are defined and managed? Hints: IANA, ICANN.

it's implied by the fact that anything commercial belongs in .com, and
anything in .org is supposed to not fit anywhere else.

That's just your wild and wrong assumption. It would not be serious if you
did not accuse others in public with no other ground than that assumption.