W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > July 2002

Re: [48 hour] DRAFT Last Call comment Re: [XML 1.1] Allowable element names

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 20:28:30 -0400 (EDT)
To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
cc: WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207072024420.2833-100000@tux.w3.org>


I was trying to explain why there was no clearl conseensus one way or the
other. I thought Al had summmed up neatly one side of the argument, and
wanted to present a skeleton of the other.

I am sorry to have been dense. (Fail WCAG 14.1 - write clearly and simply. Do
not pass go...)


On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> wrote
>>> *  "no clear cut."
>> CMN But that isn't a position the group has agreed on. A thumbs-up character
>> or a smiley face is readable to a lot more people than using a non-zero
>> integer or the keyword "true", although it does present problems that require
>> resolution. But the argument is that absolute restrictions on names in XML
>> 1.1 will not be the best outcome for accessibility.
>I am confused (not uncommon!) Al's summary says "The discussion was inconclusive"
>and gives a lot of reasons where unrestricted characters can cause problems, but
>Charles is saying the opposite, that there was a conclusive decision reached that
>unrestricted characters are positively good.
>Sorry to be dense,
>Rick Jelliffe

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2002 20:29:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:51:28 UTC