> > Actually, in some situations it can make a great deal of sense
> >(although I'm not saying whether c|net's use of it does or doesn't).
> >Let's say you need to support browsers back through the 3.x era, as
> >many institutions and universities must do. Let's further assume
> >that you've been told a certain bit of text MUST be red.
> Bad example, that's impossible to achieve, hence demanding it
I think you may be mistaken -- either that, or I have
misunderstood you. Eric's example makes perfect sense within the context
of his argument. And it is not impossible to achieve, as his example
showed -- again, unless I have misunderstood you.
> is quite clueless. The only reason to use the font element is
> to support user agents that do not support CSS but do support
> the font element. Using it in combination with CSS makes
> sense if the user agent does not support the font element but
> supports CSS or if you want to do styling that cannot be
But this _is_ impossible: applying CSS to an element that a
browser does not support will not cause that browser to style that
element's content using CSS. It will ignore the element altogether,
including its CSS styling.
> achieved using the font element, e.g. using CSS color
> keywords not supported by the font element, e.g.
> <font color="#808080" style="color: MenuText">...</font>
This seems sound -- but it is essentially the same as Eric's
example, only replacing the use of a class with inline styling.