W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: Question on WAI Accessibility Guidelines

From: Alan J. Flavell <flavell@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 10:57:53 +0100 (BST)
To: nir dagan <dagan@upf.es>
cc: WAI Guidelines List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980604103903.13619B-100000@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk>
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, nir dagan wrote:

> I think the word structure is heavily misused in the literature; 

With respect, I think you are confusing two different issues.
Both are "structures" in their respective ways: "misused" seems to
me to be over-stating the case against one of them.

> There are two types of elements, those who convey _meaning of content_ 
> and those who convey _presentational hints_ .

For "convey the meaning of content" one might reasonably say "mark-up
the structure of the content", which is what is meant when one talks
about structural v. presentational elements in HTML.

> Both CITE and I have the 
> same structure (content model).

Well, that's the structure of the HTML syntax, not the structure of
the information that's being marked-up.  Two very different things.

Then you go on to say:

> Although HR is in some sense "presentational" I think it may be used to 
> convey "sharp separation".

I think this is a subtle detail, and there are other priorities than
spending much time on it, but I'm inclined to LQ's view on this.  The
DIV container seems a more appropriate way of denoting logical
sections of a document at a level higher than the paragraph; the HR
certainly may be used but, like the BR at a lower level, it only marks
a point in the document, rather than clearly indicating a structure.

I'm not saying "don't use HR" - how could I, I use it myself.  But if
you're intending to mark up a structure, then I'd suggest using a DIV
for that.

best regards
Received on Thursday, 4 June 1998 05:57:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:57 GMT