- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:22:10 -0800
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sean, If SGML is the parent of HTML, why the problem with something do-able in HTML? Does this represent an improvement from the first whack at it that isn't accepted by some group of "purists"? If it wasn't HTML 1.0 that I originally wrote in, it was whatever version was taught to a small group of educators developing the web in Virginia. At the time I wrote the page, it included a graphic that could only be seen on a MAC, and otherwise in LYNX on a PC ... I've gotta do too much diggin to tell you the precise year, and it's a snowy Sunday night ... and the fire near the computer is warmer than the hall with the files! Suffice to say that when I was taught "HTML" there was no reference to SMTL as a parent code ... Perhaps it was mentioned and never hit my notes ... As to "what was added at a later date", that is the name of progress, from the beginning idea to the full-blown application of the idea. I'm neither old enough nor young enough to feel any reason to be dedicated to "beginning principles" without strong consideration of "progress" ... >> Maybe it's well to start with what specifically constitutes mark-up. Use of >> Bold, Italic and Underline, plus "different" color and "different" fonts, >> all used as visusal aids. > >How is a visual/presentational aid semantic? It is the exact dictionary >opposite of semantic! Quite to the contrary. Semantic is meaning, and visual/presentation aides are there to help the user unlock the meaning of the site content. >> Everyone has their own working style. Some pages are best if the visual >> effect is planned first, then add the text to round it out. > >So write the style first. I often write independant styles. If you're not >able to create styles independant of markup, I suggest that is because you >have spent too long following anachronous, limited, and blatantly illegal >Web programming habits, and I suggest you change pretty soon before the WWW >changes first. Ouch, Sean .... >> Perhaps it would say it better if it said that to simply define >significant >> structural and comprehension aides in markup. I've no clue what "data >> model" adds to the guideline. > >I fully agree. In my opinion it should be re-written to:- > > "Guideline 2. Create a given document's content based > on structure and semantics, and add the presentation as > a separate entity based on the afforementioned content." No, no, no .... let's not separate presentation from strucure and semantics so much as coordinate presentation features into structure and semantics. Bear in mind that presentation includes both visual and auditory elementents ... as well as elements that work in speech readers and braille presentations. >I shall hope to raise that with the rest of the group before our next >teleconference (I don't think you're a member of the GL are you? If you >would, you could raise your point yourself). Although it doesn't mention >markup, the definition of content will include markup, I hope :-) Sean, I am a member, but not so sponsored by an employer, I am an individual ... I have, but do not usually participate in the weekly teleconferences, only the e-mail list. My reason for being here is to see that disabled folks who aren't well-served by text aren't left off the "acccommodated on the web" list ... I'm less concerned with following a "purist" line of thought than being sure that learning disabled and cognitively disabled folks (and other users who have a preference for graphics/multimedia over text) have something to come to the web for ... Anne Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2000 19:26:23 UTC