W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources

From: Cheryl D. Wise <cdwise@wiserways.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:33:58 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1DfS2X-0003aU-5x@maggie.w3.org>

Actually it has a lot to do with the argument. When one makes a statement it
is necessary to back it up. Using incorrect terminology calls into question
whether or not one has the expertise claimed. After all you are in the one
who brought in the "Master" certified. I enquired about the source because
I've never heard of a Master certification in CSS 2. Much less in CSS 2
Programming.

When in comes to code whether it is 'mark-up' or 'programming' very precise
syntax is required. Elements and attributes are NOT the same and never will
be. Same with declarations, selectors, name/value pairs, getting even one
character wrong will cause major problems and is often the hardest to
troubleshoot. Ask anyone who mixed up a : with a ;. 

Despite the person you were arguing the point of whether or not HTML is a
programming language had a valid point in your opinion or not HTML stands
for "HyperText Mark-up Language" and CSS stands for Cascading StyleSheet,
neither of which is more than a mark-up or presentation layer, usability
beside.

FWIW, ask any programmer and they will tell you that CSS is NOT programming.
Heck, most of them don't even accept vbscript or javascript as real
programming because they do not compile but are interpreted languages.

When I am programming (something that I prefer not to do but needs must on
occasion) I am writing in compiled languages, usually VB.NET for ASP.NET
applications. When I write a script to send email results using vbscript or
php that is not programming. I'm not even a 'real' programmer either. 

CSS is a type of mark-up. It is not a programming language and never will be
because that is not its purpose in life. The closest CSS comes is a few
display actions using pseudo classes for rollovers. Maybe if the browsers
would support it generated text would be another semi-executed action but it
is not programming even if you consider it to be. 


Cheryl D. Wise
Certified Professional Web Developer
Microsoft FrontPage MVP
http://wiserways.com
http://starttoweb.com - Next Class Session Starts June 26, 2005
Office: 713-353-0139 

-----Original Message-----
From: Orion Adrian

I consider it petty criticism when it has nothing to do with the argument I
was trying to make but is rather a backdrop.

What would have been nice is for someone to have been more forward and
simply say, we've had problems with people claiming expertise in the past
and not having it.

One of my hobbies is looking at usability of programming languages (the
actual languages themselves). I find that the current view of them is very
limited. What gets considered a programming language and what doesn't very
much seems to revolve not around the actual term, but rather impressions
left behind by the early prominent programming languages.

This started when I first heard someone say that HTML was a programming
language. At first I calmly explained that it wasn't and the person worked
through the argument with me. At first I held my ground, but later I
actually thought about it and I found it as reasonable a viewpoint as mine.

As a matter of conformity, no it's not traditionally called a programming
language nor thought of as one. I, however, hold a broader view.

However this still doesn't get around why I called the comment about my use
of it nitpicking. I use nitpicking as would most people I know when someone
makes an argument tangential and attacks a point by attacking either a)
someone's credentials or b) attacking things said that have nothing to do
with the argument at hand.

I do have a firm grasp of programming, accessibility, platform design and
many other things. It doesn't really matter where I got them. So please let
it go and actually try to respond to the criticism I made in the first
place.

As to my text wrapping request, it was completely ignored twice.
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 00:34:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:21 GMT