Re: Question on <pre> and <code> - violation of 1.3.1?

On  5 Sep, Christophe Strobbe wrote:

>>   The ball should be firmly kicked back to those who creates UAs which
>>   fail to take advantage of the semantic interpretation that is there.
> 
> Sure, but accessibility is not a theoretical exercise based on "should".
> For example, finding an accessible image replacement technique wasn't just
> a matter of reading specs but involved a lot of testing.

  Correct. It's a cooperative effort between content creators, spec
  manufacturers, and browser writers - if we don't ALL cooperate we ALL
  lose.

  In this case the specification is there, the document authors has done
  their job, now the AT writers must do theirs.

-- 
 - Tina Holmboe       siteSifter                  Greytower Technologies
            http://www.sitesifter.co.uk          http://www.greytower.net
      Website Quality and Accessibility Testing