Re: Comments on 27 May 2005 WD of XHTML 2.0

Hi Al,

At 17:21 18/08/2005, Al Gilman wrote:

>At 7:35 PM +0200 8/17/05, Christophe Strobbe wrote:
>>(...)
>>The comments in the attached HTML file were written as requests, comments 
>>etc to the HTML WG.
>>Some comments are related to accessibility: these can all be found by 
>>searching the word "accessibility" (marked with <strong> and in red) in 
>>the document. (...)
>
>Christophe,
>
>(...)
>I (...) suggest that you post these on
>www-html as personal questions without waiting for further comment.

OK. Would you like me to feed back comments from www-html if they are
related to accessibility?


>I suspect that various of the ones flagged as accessibility concerns
>may have simple technical answers, such as that if the content model in a
>DTD says PCDATA, then markup *is* acceptable in that content.

Then I have been misinterpreting SGML and XML DTDs for more than 5 years.
As far as I know, if a content model says, e.g.
   <!ELEMENT TEXTAREA - - (#PCDATA)>
then no element content is allowed.
(See also "mixed content" in XML 1.0:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-mixed-content.)


>(...)
>In your @@todo: improve stylesheet notation --
>Do you mean that you are taking back an action item to propose
>improvements or you are asking them to improve it.  If the latter,
>you will be most effective with concrete suggestions such as the
>one about making sure that background and foreground text
>colors are set atomically (both or neither) in the style rules.

The '@@todo: improve stylesheet' was a reminder to myself, but it
is unlikely that I will find time to add more suggestions.
(The HTML WG knows the default style sheet needs more work.)

Christophe


>Al
>

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2005 16:06:48 UTC