W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Fw: Checkpoint 3.3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:44:20 -0400 (EDT)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907172033520.25267-100000@tux.w3.org>
The checkpoint requires markup which allows the structure of a document to be
determined directly from the markup, and the proposed presentation to be
related to that markup.  It is a flip side to another checkpoint whose number
I don't recall right now - "use markup properly..."

I think that in a future draft we should revisit the way it is written, but I
think the underlying requirement still stands, since we still lack a reliable
way of automagically guessing the structure of a document from (visual or
other) presentation markup alone.

And to answer the second question, the wieght and cascade is somewhat
patchily implemented (after all, the algorithm for CSS1 and CSS2 are
different, at the insistence of WAI PF among others) but my understainding is
that the FONT element, and similar HTML 3.2 style elements are included
pretty well in implementaions. The odd one out is tables which are ued to
control layout - these are treated (quite properly in my opinion) as if they
were "structural" markup. The problems caused by their use in most common
cases has been ameliorated, but their misuse and the consequent irritant of
having to read linearised tables rather than cleanly designed pages (which
might of course be the same, but night not) is still fairly prevalent.

Charles McCN


On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Al Gilman wrote a couple of good points:
  
  CMN::
  >My knee-jerk answer is yes, because CSS actually includes a mechanism whereby
  >HTML 3.2 presentational elements which were deprecated in HTML 4.0 are
  >included in the CSS cascade.
  
  AG::
  To what extent is this "CSS actually" in the sense that it is in the
  consensus core of implemented CSS functions?
  

  CMN::
  >The point against is that inline elements are not part of style sheets,
  >which is what the checkpoint actually requires.
  
  AG::
  The question is why that is what the checkpoint "actually requires."  Is
  that what accessibility actually requires?  What is the operational
  difference as seen by the user?  What information is unavailable?  What
  added difficulty is there to access what information? 
  
  Al
Received on Saturday, 17 July 1999 20:44:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT