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

Re: List of Technologies

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:04:37 -0800
Message-Id: <a0501040db6787e7b3c8b@[10.0.1.5]>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 6:07 PM +0000 1/2/01, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>  >  One more thing to add, which Sean probably won't like:
>>  - HTML
>
>Do you mean HTML 4.01? I don't think there *are* any other forms of HTML
>other than that.
>BTW: Consider your answer carefully: telling me that people use proprietary
>HTML is the equivalent of telling a five-year-old that Santa Claus doesn't
>exist :-)

Some people use HTML 4.00 and HTML 3.2 and HTML 2.0.

In the past, we have not considered valid, accessible use of HTML
3.2 to be a barrier to access, and I don't think we'll start on
that in the future.

So it might be worthwhile to mention HTML 3.2 and 2.0 if/when it
diverges from HTML 4.01.

But in general our "base" should be HTML 4.01.

It also may be useful to make reference to well-known variants of
HTML within techniques, with those clearly labeled as "non-standard"
or the like.  For example, "Do not use the non-standard <BLINK>
element."  That's a reference to an HTML tag that you think doesn't
exist, but if we leave it out, we risk accessibility barriers.

Likewise, we might want to say, "Instead of using the non-standard
TOPMARGIN attribute, use the appropriate CSS" or whatever.  I think
that despite what our resident purist may think, we will definitely
have to refer to non-standard HTML.

--Kynn
-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 02:16:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT