- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:41:51 -0700
- To: A.Flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk
- CC: gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
AF:: "So, as far as the reader is concerned, <strong class="warning">
carries no more meaning than if it had been <strong class="k5368">,
even though to me as the author its intent was clear; it's just a
semantics-free handle used to tie between markups in the HTML, and
style suggestions in the stylesheet. That's the one theory, as
opposed to the competing interpretation whereby <strong
class="warning"> is a kind of HTML extension mechanism that
effectively defines a new <warning> tag.
"So, this still seems a bit of a grey area, about which some
fundamentally different views are held about principles. Whichever
view you hold on the principles, it seems to be good practice to use
class names that are indicative of the significance in regard to
meaning (class=warning, charter, aimsandobjectives, whatever) rather
than in regard to one possible desired specification (class=red,
specialfont, bigitalics and so on). But whichever way you go, the
class name isn't a part of the information that gets shown to the
normal reader."
WL: Couldn't have said it better <g>. Should we just ignore this matter?
The idea that style has semantics is so inescapable in most people's
minds that there must be some way to convey intended semantics presented
via presentation mode. Merely proscribing the practice is not sufficient
because we blindless people don't even know we're doing it in many
cases.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2000 18:42:48 UTC