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

Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:45:11 +0100
Message-ID: <42A4EE17.8060503@splintered.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Orion Adrian wrote:

> I don't feel the only option is replacement.

ok, but:

> C++ is an incredibly powerful language, but a lot of users of the
> language felt that it wasn't helping them program as much as it could.
> The standards bodies responsible for it didn't act in a way that the
> users of the languages could tolerate and it is rapidly being
> surplanted by other languages that achieve the programmer's goals
> better (Java / .Net).

this sounds like you are talking about replacement...or being 
supplanted, in any case.

> I find it interesting that many in the W3C mailing lists blame
> Microsoft for poor standards implementation,
> The W3C doesn't produce an industry quality browser and I find it
> quite a lot to ask the bodies outside itself to up and implement
> anything they say to implement simply because they said so.

don't forget that the W3C is a consortium, and microsoft is actually 
part of that consortium. hence the irony: they are part of the body that 
shapes the standards, and then they do not follow them.

> As a
> developer I am not required to implement bad ideas just because the
> standards body says so. I will extend and improve upon the standard
> and make my own flavor.

thus turning a standard into a proprietary format...

> Accessibility needs not be work. Styling needs to not be work and
> Markup needs to not be work.

pardon me, but that sounds like utopian idealism. do you have any 
concrete proposals other than "it should not be hard work"?

> None of the W3C Web Technologies is the Holy Grail. I have not found a
> single language to be a joy to program, despite my love of programming
> and every day when faced with a new type of document to markup, to
> style or to make accessibly I am left with doubts. I have marked up a
> lot of documents and a lot of different documents. I have explained
> the process of semantic markup to people of all walks and experiences
> and I can tell you that each time I learn a little more and become
> just a little more dissatisfied with what tools I have available to
> me.

to me, these are the problems related to the fact that HTML/XHTML define 
the most basic building blocks, which necessarily do not always map 
perfectly to the myriad of possible content types encountered in the 
real world. again, what would the answer be? more elements? or a 
completely new approach (and if so, what kind)?

> The tools in the toolbox should not have
> to be coerced into the role I need as they are with mutli-column
> layouts and float.

and that's why new versions of standards are being constantly worked on. 
you can't run before you walk, and you certainly can't foresee and 
second guess any possible real world problem and create a specific 
solution (style rule, in the case of CSS) to deal with it.

> This is not about ideals; it is about ideas. This is not about who is
> right and who is wrong; it's about what's best for everyone. It's not
> about telling people how they are wrong, but rather allowing all
> viewpoints to come out. It's about expression; it's about
> understanding; it's about making the world a better place by
> compromising nothing.

make poverty history NOW. aeh, sorry...but i beg to differ, your speech 
IS about ideals. i have not seen any concrete proposals for how the 
problems you list can be addressed. extensibility of markup languages? 
100s of new style rules?

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 00:45:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:32 UTC