Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

Hi,
Thanks for discussing the points I raised in the telecon, especially due to
the fact I only just joined the group, and given my absence from the
teleconference itself. I've been through the minutes, and have the following
comments, which I hope will be of some further help and interest:

> JW Use of markup is 2.3.
> WL You have to identify that you are using style elements as pseudo
> elements for structure. e.g., use "sale" as class in style sheet, the only
> way to get the semantics out of it is to look at css.
> JW That is an issue, but it comes under 2.3. Using markup correctly.
> 3.2 is using presentation properly.

I foresaw this happening as 3.2 and 2.3 are very closely related. What I was
suggesting was that the definition for 2.3,

     > "ensure that the structural and semantic distinctions defined
     > in the markup (checkpoint 2.3) are reflected in the presentation"
          - WCAG 2.0

was a bit too hard for most people to break down; in other words, they might
get the suggestion that styling due to structure and styling due to
semantics were the same type of thing, when in fact they are very different
means of styling altogether. As I showed in my CSS example for semanticized
HTML, you can provide both structural and semantic styling for the same
piece of data, but the two styles were in fact very distinct from one
another: the semantic style concentrated on the meaning of the text, and the
presentation aspect on proving a visual clue (or hint) for screen output.
While the intended effect (i.e. presentation to accentuate the logical
progression and meaning of the markup and its content) was essentially the
same, the methods for doing so were highly distinct from one another.

> WL In addition, 3.1 style is used in a different context. Doesn't have
> anything to do with style sheets, but rather "style" in artistic sense.
> Action WC: make sure the word "style" is used consistently.

This is quite tricky to define becuase style can be used as artistry, for
presentation, and to facilitate logical progression. We are only really
concerned with the last point, aren't we?

> Action WC: Add examples to 3.2

What kind of examples? There is quite a huge reportoire of possibilities,
due to the broad range of everyday applications for web documents.

> [...] This checkpoint tries to address that in a more explicit way.
> DB style here means markup style, right.

I think we should try to move away from implying that markup has a style. It
should be fully structural and the style is completely separate. i.e. A
document comprises of structural and semantic data information, in the form
of markup and content. This entire structure should have a regular logical
structure than can then be styled both semantically and presentationally, to
emphasise the logical structure of the document. Markup should have style,
it is structural/semantic. HTML does contain legacy presentational elements,
for example <hr />, but these should be avoided in the interests of
accessibility (and maybe we could state that in writing???).
Also, 2.3 is an excellent point (kudos to the WG!), but it is hard to
provide examples for such an abstract issue. Maybe there should be a longer
abstract prose definition for it, so as to provide further definition of
what the checkpoint actually means.

BTW: My email (sean@mysterylights.com) is still intermittent at best, so
could you please CC replies to sean@wapdesign.org.uk, thanks!

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

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 19:12:17 UTC