W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: List of Technologies

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:38:52 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101021236060.27842-100000@tux.w3.org>
I agree with most of what Kynn proposed (so have snipped it). In particular I
have already accepted the responsibility for doing the SVG stuff. I need to
talk to Wendy about what the process is  for making a techniques document.

But I think that in fact the XHTML and HTML techniques should be in the same
document, since most of them are the same, and it would be helpful to
demonstrate the few differences that exist. (And to explain carefully in the
front what the differences are and why, for the curious).


Charles McCN

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
  >- XHTML
  >   - CSS Style for XHTML
  >   - XHTML m12n
  Yes, this is good.  This could potentially be combined together, but
  leaving them separate allows for a possibly more "generic" CSS
  document.  In other words, write a "pure CSS" techniques document
  which assumes, but isn't limited to, CSS working with XHTML.  This
  allows it to work with HTML, with XML, etc.
  One more thing to add, which Sean probably won't like:

  - HTML

  I think we -have- to have a module for HTML if we want to be relevant
  for the next couple of years.  To many people, learning a new
  technology (XHTML for example) is scary and threatening and they
  worry about backwards compatibility, about browser support for
  new technologies, and about bureaucratic restrictions.  The vast
  majority of web designers are coding in HTML (or think they are
  writing HTML at least) -- if we say "thou shalt only use XHTML to
  be accessible" then we will have lost them.
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 12:38:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:35 UTC