Thoughts on WCAG 2.0 {3.2}

Hi Everyone,
I've just joined (hi!), and I thought I'd pitch this into the recent
discussions about {3.2} in WCAG 2.0, because it seems pretty important.
On swi-dev, we have been discussing styling content due to it's semantics.
An example given was if Dublin Core was allowed in HTML:

     <html xmlns="[...]"
           xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
     <head><title>My Page</title></head>
     <body>
     <p dc:author="Robin">This bit was written by Robin</p>
     <p dc:author="Sean">This bit was written by Sean</p>
     </body>
     </html>

Then, by using this CSS stylesheet:

     *[dc\:author="Robin"] { font-size: 50em; color: #ff0000; }

Everything authored by Robin will be big and red, (according to his
wishes!). While being a tacky example, it open up discussions for why CSS
and all other types of styling should be intrinsically linked to the
*semantics* of the document. If HTML/XML were semantic and used RDF etc. to
markup it's contents, rather than the presenational rubbish that HTML
currently provides (with the exception of the inline phrasal elements, for
example), then we could stlye it according to content, not
presentational/structural aspects. The trouble is, more CSS selectors will
be needed to implement such systems, because RDF is often layered.

BTW: As a new member, I *hope* to be at the telecon tonight if possible (I
have to change our phone line over before then or the call charges will be
astronomical!). I just thought I'd pitch this in before hand, so as you can
discuss it if you wish. My full regrets if I don't make it.  I'm also a new
member of the WAI ERT WG/IG, so busy times ahead!

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 08:15:28 UTC