W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: (PFWG) ACTION-211 Query re: SVG Request for @order for Access Module

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:32:26 +0200
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, public-xhtml2@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, public-svg-wg@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080811223226.GB18861@greytower.net>

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 05:18:36PM -0500, Shane McCarron wrote:

>> "Also note: When processing a document with duplicate ids (e.g., an  
>> invalid XML document), element groups based on targetid values may  
>> contain multiple values, just like those of targetrole values." 
>
> Honestly, I don't consider your suggestion a compromise.  Regardless, I  
> am stepping out of the decision loop on this issue.  I am clearly very  
> opinionated on this, and it is possible my opinions are out of sync with  
> the current thinking of the XHTML 2 Working Group.

  While it may sound like too little too late I would like to add my
  agreement to Shane's comments.

  Authoring documents which violate agreed upon grammars will have
  unpredictable consequences. We certainly don't need to send the
  message that this is a desirable thing. Saying, clearly, that if one
  do then things Might Just Break, is the pragmatic way forward.

  We're working on an XHTML standard - not a possible-somewhere-something
  future one. A standard which is a moving target, either in terms on
  what is decided, or what multitude of possible situations that may or
  may not occur that it tries to cover, is not worth the paper upon which
  it is written. 

  It might be that I too am out of sync with the WG. But I don't think
  so.

-- 
 - Tina M. Holmboe
   Greytower Technologies
Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 22:33:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:52:01 GMT