W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: headers attribute (was Re: Form elements)

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:20:55 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0706021320i23c45556na33dca3d842cb3ed@mail.gmail.com>
To: schalk@alliedbridge.com, public-html@w3.org

On 5/31/07, Schalk Neethling <schalk@alliedbridge.com> wrote:

> I do not believe that a feature should be included or excluded based on
>  the amount of people who currently use or have used it but instead, by
> the semantic meaning it conveys and it's usefulness in that regard in
> HTML coding. I am not just talking about this issue but in general. Not
> a lot of developers and companies are currently using standards and/or
> thinking about accessibility, does that mean we should stop using
> standards and forget about accessibility?

fyi...

Related quantity of cases blog comment by Ian Hickson:

"...We are not going to have semantics for everything. If something is
rare, then it won't be supported. It really is that simple. This is
about achieving the 80% common case, it's not about making a language
that does everything..."
http://juicystudio.com/article/html-scope-headers-debate.php#comment8

Related blog comment by Gez Lemon:

"...By definition, people with disabilities are a minority...
It is completely unacceptable to state that because something is only
applicable to people with disabilities, hence, less than 80% common,
that it will not be provided. The W3C process requires that
technologies must be accessible, so hopefully that will help change
your view that accessibility provisions are similar to pandering to
people's whims, rather than provisions for people who cannot readily
change aspects about themselves..."
http://juicystudio.com/article/html-scope-headers-debate.php#comment11

Laura
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2007 20:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC