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

Re: Don't require <Q>

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:08:40 -0500
Message-Id: <200101160400.XAA732073@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 03:16 PM 2001-01-15 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Question:  Has it -ever- been proven in practice that use of <Q>
>increases accessibility for people with disabilities?  Are there
>current assistive technologies which recognize and use the <Q>
>tag in a meaningful way?

Jason's point about Brailling quotes is good, except that Braille translation
is language-dependent, so we don't need a language-independent indication for
quotations here.  The language-specific quotation marking usage will suffice. 
But I may not fully understand the interaction.

The <Q> element originally came out of internationalization considerations.

See e.g.

The language in the WCAG 1.0 examples, of course, just came from "do it right
per the W3C Recommendation."  The notable accessibility problem was in
abuse of
BLOCKQUOTE for indent, and Q just came along for the ride in the "do it right"

This shows that accessibility is not the only group who got things in HTML 4
that browsers somehow never got right.

I believe that we could add a note in the errata document to the effect that
"until user agents" trumps "use <Q>" under the present circumstances so
that it
is clear that <Q> is not required for AA at this time.

I wouldn't want to go further than that with the revision of what we ask
to do without re-connecting with internationalization, because there may be
things we want to do in terms of an alternate approach in XHTML 2.0 and
which way that is going could help us to steer where we go with WCAG 2.0.

Received on Monday, 15 January 2001 23:00:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC