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

Re: Layout tables

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 11:15:46 +0100
Message-Id: <a0501040cb6ce5cfd3ce2@[212.157.162.205]>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>, <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Cc: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 2:05 AM -0800 3/9/01, William Loughborough wrote:
>In the final analysis I believe (*strongly*?) that this is far more 
>in the purview of EO than GL - sort of "GL propose - EO dispose". If 
>the charter says elsewise, it's just wrong.
>If we bother our pretty little heads about whether CSS is 
>well-supported or that tables are being used for layout (or that 
>people still use <font>, etc., etc., etc., etc.) then we can not do 
>the necessarily forward-compatible stuff that's at the heart of 
>making new guidelines/checkpoints.

So basically you are saying it's the job of GL to create unreasonable
guidelines, and the job of EO to attempt to sell those guidelines to
GL's audience?

Strange approach -- has it worked so far?  Has EO been effective -- more
than GL -- in getting people to adopt "unreasonable" guidelines?  Or
have we seen more of those issues being bounced back to GL for
"clarification" and a number of issues being "dropped" by third parties
creating regulations/guidelines/implementation plans because they
didn't like a checkpoint?

Is EO really the PR juggernaut that we need it to be, in order to force
web designers to use CSS even though it's not reasonable for them to do
so based on poor browser support?  I apologize if I've underestimated
EO's ability all this time -- this isn't an attack on their competence
but rather on the assumption that EO can fix -everything-.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 05:19:46 GMT

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