- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:13:03 +0200
- To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
- cc: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com> wrote: >Thank you, Karl. ;) Maybe I should have mentioned that I've given >seminars on WCAG with valid HTML/CSS, so I'm pretty familiar with the >distinction. Speaking of which, do we still fails as miserably to be accessible as we used to? I'm little by little aproaching the stage where I feel there is any use to soliciting accessability review of the site and anything I can catch beforehand is a definite advantage. (the caveat still applies that I won't fix the big things until the infrastructure work is done first, but...) >>We can perfectly put at the top for the layout and at the bottom in >>the structure. So the page will be fine in text browsers and in >>graphical browsers. > >In principle, yes. In this imperfect world, however, a developer must >not exclude those using horribly flawed browsers like NS4. While there >are ways to keep NS4 from seeing the CSS and going mad, they quickly >leave the realm of elegance which CSS is supposed to offer and descend >into very ugly hackdom. I like to think that Validator performs well in anything from Lynx, through Netscape 4.x, and up to MSIE/Mozilla of later revisions. It does this by withholding CSS from Netscape 4.x (dull but functional) and being pragmatic about structure to make sure everyone gets something usable. All tricks to achieve "prettyness" are in CSS (*not* in the structure) so CSS browsers get them and everyone else just gets the meat. -- If you believe that will stop spammers, you're sadly misled. Rusty hooks, rectally administered fuel oil enemas, and the gutting of their machines, *that* stops spammers! -- Saundo
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 17:10:00 UTC