W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Scope of Specification and Principles - Re: HDP: Revised "Support Existing Content" Principle

From: Marghanita da Cruz <marghanita@ramin.com.au>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:12:24 +1000
Message-ID: <46FC38D8.9010700@ramin.com.au>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org

Thanks Gregory,

 From the references you provided below, it appears that if authors have
produced semantically and
syntactically correct HTML then it will be accessible.

However, where functions have not been provided in earlier versions of HTML, notably
the "Menu"/Relationship between pages - cowpaths and wheels may have been
invented.  The symantically incorrect but necessary use Tables, scripts and the
vertical bar spring to mind.

(Note, as an Author, I have avoided scripting and tended to use tables or 
vertical bars for menus. As part of my
detailed review of the spec, I am in the process of attempting to re-author some 
existing webpages using the proposed Menu, this is going to take
some time unless someone can point me at an example.)

But this becomes a conformance criteria for convertors (preHTML5 to
HTML5) and readers (user agents) to possibly/ideally translate as symantic
equivalent to the HTML5 "Menu" or should they do the reverse? ie degrade the
Menu to the cowpath/wheel?

This raises an issue about the scope of both the principles and the HTML5

Is the conformance of readers (particularly in relation to the processing of old
"existing content") outside the scope of the HTML5 specification?

If it is in scope, it is currently missing from the scope for which I proposed
this rewrite <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/0524.html>
and further "fall backs", old wheels and cowpaths be incorporated into the HTML5

Whether their inclusion appears in the final specification or not - they would
probably be useful in
the drafting

eg. Cowpath Example (s):
Proposed HTML5:

In some postings, including the following - there seems to be an
implication/assumption that  fallbacks are part of the HTML5 spec:


Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
> aloha, marghanita!
> there are many excellent internal (W3C) resources to assist you in <
> fleshing out the final phrase of your counter-proposal and in gaining 
> a better understanding of how assistive technologies work with web 
> technologies, amongst which are:
> 1. Accessibility Features of HTML4
>    * http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/HTML4-access
> also:
>    * http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS-access.html/
> 2. Components of Web Accessibility:
>    * http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/components.php
> 3. Alternative Web Browsing
>    * http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/Browsing
> i have attempted to collect such material in the HTML wiki page
> located at:
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityDependencies
> gregory.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> It is better to ask some of the questions than to know 
> all the answers.                      -- James Thurber
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
>          Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus
> Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus
> ------------------------------------------------------
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Marghanita da Cruz <marghanita@ramin.com.au>
> To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
> Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
> Sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:41:43 +1000
> Subject: Re: HDP: Revised "Support Existing Content" Principle
>> Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>>> aloha, maciej!
>> <snip>
>>> here is my proposed text again:
>>> "Browsers should retain support for residual/legacy markup designed 
> for 
>>> a specific purpose, such as accessibility. internationalization or 
> device 
>>> independence. Simply because new technologies and superior mechanisms 
>>> have been identified, not all of them have been implemented. 
> Moreover, 
>>> disabled users are more likely to be users of "legacy technology" 
> because
>>> it is the only technology that interacts correctly with third-party 
>>> assistive technologies."
>> <snip>
>> I am not familiar with Assistive Technologies and from this 
>> paragraph am unsure whether there is markup aimed specifically 
>> at Assistive Technologies or whether the way a browser 
>> interprets markup enables assistive technologies.
>> However, I think I get the intent of covering this under the 
>>  "Supporting Existing (pre-HTML5) Content Principle" but 
>> wondered if rephrasing it along the following lines would be 
>> more consistent with the principles document.
>> "Some/Many Webpages include of markup which needs to be 
>> interpreted in a specific way by Browsers (or directs browsers 
>> to behave in a particular way), to enable the page to be 
>> translated/interpreted correctly by Assistive Technologies such 
>> as screen readers. Examples of such markup are...."
>> Marghanita
>> -- 
>> Marghanita da Cruz
>> http://www.ramin.com.au
>> Phone: (+61)0414 869202
> ------- End of Original Message -------

Marghanita da Cruz
Phone: (+61)0414 869202
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 23:12:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:22 UTC