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

Re: Don't require <Q>

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:34:13 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010115193227.0220d2e0@garth.idyllmtn.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 06:36 PM 1/15/2001 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Hmmm, I don't think this does it. Either you use the markup (and Q is part of
>the markup) or you don't meet the checkpoint. If we want to have an erratum,
>it should be specific: "until user agents support the q element, do not use
>it". Which of course brings us to the thorny question (yet again) of how
>widely something needs to be supported.

Frankly, I view this as a flaw in the specification.  The HTML 4
spec that included <q> was NOT backwards compatible and thus any
implementation will be seriously broken in one of the two ways
that Len described.

So we're not looking at a problem with user agents, we're looking
at a problem with a poorly written spec that doesn't allow for any
sort of transitional implementations.  And that's broken.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                http://kynn.com/
Technical Developer Relations, Reef           http://www.reef.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://idyllmtn.com/
Contributor, Special Ed. Using XHTML     http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml
Unofficial Section 508 Checklist       http://kynn.com/+section508
Received on Monday, 15 January 2001 23:00:34 GMT

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