- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:03:59 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
Lachlan Hunt wrote, quote: > We have a much better chance of getting Microsoft to improve > IE by working with them, rather than excluding them based on > past performance and personal opinions. unquote i whole-heartedly agree, but i also believe that no WG can be held responsible for nor captive by poor, shoddy, or incomplete implementations; what must be avoided at all costs are any work-arounds that encourage authors to deviate from using the semantically logical markup which, when valid AND validly parsed, fully support the standard DTDs addressed by, for instance, such technical recommendations as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). if, for example, the Q element is recognized by a user agents' parser, there MUST be a default style in the user agents' default style sheet for the Q element, just as there are default stylings for the EM and STRONG elements, all of which can trigger multi- modal, user-controlled switches to indicate the presence of a semantically meaningful element. when confronted with a lack of implementation on the part of BrowserX, a WG should formally ask the Domain's Co-Ordination group to discuss the incomplete implementation, and to approach those user agent and third-party technology developers who are members of the W3C and formally request implementation by those companies slash organizations' Advisory Committee member, who should, in turn, make it an internal matter of the utmost importance at the company that produces BrowserX. as i've hectored the WAI domain since 1997, it all comes down to a very simple fact: accessibility, usability, internationalization, device independence and interoperability are chicken and egg questions, in which the W3C is supposed to serve as incubator - the problem is, we have many beautiful eggs inside the incubator, but the chickens outside are all running around with their heads cut off. what we need is insistence on coding to a published standard and implementation of published standards - the Q element, which i earlier used as an example, has been part of the HTML family of markup languages since 1998 -- when does the onus to implement it FULLY and CORRECTLY (that is, according to spec) fall on the implementors? they must be held responsible for the quality (or lack thereof) of their products -- ESPECIALLY those produced by W3C members. past behavior is not necessarily an indicator of future behavior; if history is repeated, then there is a clear, formal path to address the situation. no group, member, or individual should be discouraged or disqualified simply because they work for the developer of BrowserX or UserAgentY. gregory. --------------------------------------------------------------- ABSURDITY, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devils' Dictionary_ --------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net or gregory@ubats.org skype: oedipusnj sites: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/ http://ubats.org http://my.opera.com/oedipus/ ---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 04:04:17 UTC