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

Re: Updated Bobby

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:39:33 -0800
Message-ID: <3C21B1D5.1000208@munat.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Holy cow. What on earth are you talking about?

I didn't make any claim that XHTML 1.1 was perfectly accessible. After 
reading your post, I'm worried that it isn't. I just wanted to know if 
you had any specifics. One obvious one that I can think of is that you 
can't use the name attribute. It doesn't affect my sites much, but I 
wonder about the ramifications of that. As for lang, I wasn't aware that 
any browsers were really putting it to much use yet. It'd be nice to 
know for sure.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression. Forget I asked. Good luck on the 
job hunt.


P.S. My wife will really enjoy the "macho man" comment. I've been 
telling her that I'm really macho for a long time, but she refuses to 
believe me. Finally: proof!

Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> At 12:36 AM -0800 12/20/01, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>> Thanks, Kynn, but you haven't answered my questions. I'm aware of the 
>> issues regarding backwards-compatibility. If you'll reread my 
>> original email, you'll see that I asked several specific questions. 
>> If you don't have the answers, no problem -- just say so, and I'll 
>> look elsewhere for them.
> Okay, fine, if everything on these blasted lists is going to turn
> into some sort of stupid competition to show "who's right" and an
> amateur debating forum for people who don't get out of the house
> enough -- fine, I will CONCEDE DEFEAT.  YOU WIN, YOU MACHO MAN.
> Now, I expect you to prove that every assistive technology that
> supports lang="fr" (for example) also supports xml:lang="fr".
> If you can't do that, then you're just full of crap, Charles.  Feel
> free to tell the world that XHTML 1.1, in non-compatibility-with-
> HTML-browser mode, is fully accessible, and I'll just find something
> better to do than argue with you on the asinine terms you (and
> others) set.
> Really.  No wonder this mailing list is less than useful most of
> the time.
> --Kynn, really should be jobhunting
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 04:38:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC