W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Standards group ignites common-code war

From: Marjolein Katsma <access@javawoman.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:43:50 +0200
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716113455.03559f08@pop.javawoman.com>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Well, of cource Eric Ott was wise enough not to state to *which* standards Dreamweaver is "compliant" <grin/>
Maybe HTML 4.0 and CSS1?

Macromedia right now is working to make Dreamweaver (and HomeSite/Studio) support XHTML 1.0 - maybe that's why he considers it an "emerging technology"...
HomeSite users have started to request XHTML support some two years ago (it's quite possible Dreamweaver users did the same, of course,  but I don't know them as well as I know HomeSite users). But due to "downsizing" support for accessibility in HomeSite and Studio was dropped as a major item for the next version; improvements in this area will be extremely limited and ad-hoc.

At 23:09 2001-07-12 -0400, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>thanks jim!
>
>in the CNET article to which you referred the AU WG
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6547875.html?tag=st.ne.1005.saslnk.sase
>ml
>
>the following caught my attention:
>
>quote
>"There's no question--we are standards compliant," Ott said. "The issue is
>with some of these emerging technologies, like XHTML, CSS 2 and
>accessibility. These are all things that are on people's radar right now,
>and we're working with different groups to make sure that all these new
>features are in the product."
>unquote
>
>hmm...  in honor of brother gil, i have to preface my remarks by saying,
>"emerging technologies, my ass" -- the TR edition of CSS2 is date-stamped 12
>May 1998...  the TR for XHTML 1.0 is date-stamped 26 January 2000, but it is
>bound/based upon 2 significantly older technical recommendations: HTML 4.01,
>date-stamped 24 December 1999, which is actually HTML 4.0, date-stamped 24
>April 1998, "as corrected", and XML 1.0, which has a date-stamp of 10
>February 1998...
>
>as for accessibility, how can you put a date-stamp on accessibility?
>ironically, considering the subject of the article, accessibility as
>expressed as a W3C technological recommendation, the one guidelines document
>which has yet to reach technical recommendation status is the User Agent
>Accessibility Guidelines -- WCAG is date-stamped 5 May 1999, and our lil'
>buckaroo, ATAG, is date-stamped 3 February 2000...
>
>as for awareness of accessibility, i'd like to believe that it dates back to
>the very dawn of consciousness, but i'll settle for that serving as the
>date-stamp for awareness (no doubt acute) of inaccessibility...
>
>gregory.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>CYNIC, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not
>as they ought to be.  Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking
>out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
>                              -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
>                 Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marjolein Katsma
HomeSite Help - http://hshelp.com/
Bookstore for Webmasters - http://hshelp.com/bookstore/bookstore.html
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 05:43:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:46 UTC