W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: More references on XML/XHTML and accessibility

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:49:29 -0700
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, tina@greytower.net
To: Tim Roberts <tim@wiseguysonly.com>
Message-Id: <E1B5F6DC-A873-11D7-AC3A-000393D9E692@idyllmtn.com>


On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 12:24 AM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> They demonstrate many points I have raised, and you won't refute 
> because there is nothing to refute. I am not being petty; the 
> arguments are good and I encourage people to read them.

Why didn't you quote this paragraph, which is directly relevant to
the discussion we've been having?

"By itself, XHTML is not necessarily any more accessible than HTML;
  depending on how you create the page and what elements and attributes
  you use, you could create a highly accessible page, or a highly
  inaccessible page. The use of XHTML itself (or XML) does not
  automatically guarantee a page's accessibility."

Why did you arrange three quotes out of order and out of context
from the other page?

Why did you neglect to point out the context of these statements --
delivered to a non-technical audience for whom valid HTML itself
is a large problem?  That context sheds light on this statement:

"XHTML -- Extensible HyperText Markup Language -- is the reformulation
  of HTML according to the rules of XML. XHTML is a clean, structured
  version of HTML that allows for greater separation of content and
  presentation, and compatibility with XML tools."

As seen in the slide which accompanied the presentation
http://access.idyllmtn.com/csun2003-kbartlett/beyondhtml10.html
the particular point is on the evolution of HTML from the start of
the Web (starting with HTML 2.0 on the slide) to the present.  Nothing
there supports your contention that XHTML has inherent accessibility
features over HTML.  (And, even if it did state something to that
effect -- which it doesn't -- all you'd be "proving" is what I thought
back in 2002 when the paper was written. I -could- have changed my
mind, but I haven't really.)

C'mon, kid.  These Stupid Google Tricks where you just happen to
quote some guy named "Kynn Bartlett" to support your side of the
argument are degrading to the discussion and to your yourself.  If
you really want to know what I think, you can ask me.  If your goal
instead is to discredit me, well, you can keep on trying, but so far
it hasn't worked yet.

And even if you did -- the point isn't whether or not you can find
what you perceive to be an inconsistency in what I've stated.  It's
whether or not not XHTML is provably better for accessibility than
HTML.  It's not, can we go on to the next issue, or are you going
to find something I wrote in 1999 which contradicts this?

--Kynn

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                     http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain                http://idyllmtn.com
Author, CSS in 24 Hours                       http://cssin24hours.com
Inland Anti-Empire Blog                      http://blog.kynn.com/iae
Shock & Awe Blog                           http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 03:44:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT