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

RE: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:19:51 -0500 (EST)
To: Ben Canning <bencan@microsoft.com>
cc: "'David Woolley'" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101112313420.11713-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Ben Canning wrote:

  Hopefully not too ignorant a question, but what breaks because the docType
  is missing?

CMN: Validation. Developing tools for the future that rely on the use of
standards (which is often a helpful way to develop tools) means that in the
ERT and AU groups we are wrestling with the question of how to deal with
non-standard markup. One possiblity is to specify an algorithm that tries to
convert it, which also becomes a corresponding suggested repair.

It isn't a critical breakdown, but it demonstrates that the tool is not
capable of actually conforming to anything more recent than HTML 2.0 which is
a bit out of date now.

BC:
  On the charge that WYSIWYG tools encourage non-structural markup, that's
  really just a question (IMHO) of improving the tools. There are a number of
  things in the WAI standards for authoring tools that can be implemented
  without too much trouble; many others will take a fair bit of creativity to
  implement in a way that isn't annoying to users. Specific feedback like "FP
  does this when it should do that" is really helpful in getting these things
  addressed, though.

  FP (and DreamWeaver) is also doing a bit of a balancing act between one
  constituency who wants us to provide absolute flexibility in how code is
  authored and formatted (don't mess with my HTML!) and another that wants us
  to promote structural markup, which would typically involve us taking more
  control over the way the code is generated. The two are by no means mutually
  exclusive, but it's hard to serve both communities and get it just right.
  We'll keep trying, though.
CMN:
This is true. As I am not familiar with FP2000 (at the moment I have MacOS
and Linux - I haven't seen versions for either OS yet. I guess the MacOS
version will come first... <grin/>) can you tell me if it provides options
like running a validation test? This would allow the people who don't want
their code touched without being told to have it cleaned up for them when
they want...

cheers

Charles McCN

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
  Behalf Of David Woolley
  Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 5:35 PM
  To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
  Subject: Re: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables


  > other WYSIWYG editors. I would _love_ to see _specific_ examples of 'bad'
  > HTML generated by FrontPage (or DreamWeaver) and how you got the HTML
  > generated.

  The typical early frontpage errors were overlapping elements,
  inline elements not terminated before a block element, multiple
  empty inline elements, incorrect doctypes.

  FP 2000 may be better, but it doesn't generate a doctype at all.

  These tools also encourage non-structural markup, by the way their
  user interface makes such markup easier than proper markup.


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2001 23:20:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT