Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

Hi Anne,

> Suffice to say that when I was taught "HTML" there was no reference
> to SMTL as a parent code

*sigh* SGML - Standard Generalised Markup Language. I'll find the ISO number
if you want/require me to.
If there was no reference to SGML, then the "wanton destuction of the
principles behind it" had already stated to take place, or else the course
wasn't that thourough. This whole situation has to do with the incorrect
notion of attaching behaviours to un-semantic HTML/SGML markup.

> 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" ...

The Web isn't very old at all: Tim suggested the HTML first draft in 1992.
I'm afraid just becuase something has been added into HTML simply due to
commercialization, it doesn't mean that that addition is therefore a good
thing. In this case, it is far from a good thing! If progress is attaching
behaviours to markup with no real meaning, then what on earth is
destruction?

> Semantic is meaning, and visual/presentation aides are there
> to help the user unlock the meaning of the site content.

Yes, they "help unlock" the meaning. They aren't the meaning themselves: you
seem to be confusing them somehow...
Presentation has no semantics of it's own, and should and could therefore be
separated from the content.

> > 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 ....

It's true, and I could have been a lot harsher. However, I'm not saying this
stuff out of spite, or because I'm looking for an arguement (in fact I'm
getting tiresome), or because it's my strong opinion or belief. I'm saying
things like, "you have spent too long following anachronous, limited, and
blatantly illegal Web programming habits", because it appears to me to be
all too true.....I look at it from a Semantic Web point of view, where all
elements are semantically described and linked (see RDF -
http://www.w3.org/RDF). Presentational markup *won't* have a place on the
SW, and we might as well start getting used to that fact now. Anyone that
uses presentational markup is:-

1. Well behind the times, for a start
2. Abusing the entire principles of SGML and markup in general
3. Does nothing for the accessibility of their site
4. Ensures that the SW is dragged down just a little bit further
5. Has generally evaluated the entire Web architecture situation incorrectly

I see that I am fighting a pointless battle here, especially when you refer
to SGML as SMTL...
In the future, it won't be possible to hand edit code anymore, so all of
this will become a pointless arguement anyway: common sense always wins in
the end and the points I am trying to assert here will prevail, so I don't
know why I am even bothering to discuss it (yes I do: the SW could be many
years off in the future yet.....)!
Presentational markup is wrong for a great many reasons, but at the end of
the day it is still wrong. No matter how much you argue on the matter, you
could never convince me, or the majority of experienced Web programmers, and
I hope you'll come to realise *why*.

> >     "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

Yes, yes, yes. But let's not get into pantomime here(!)...

> .... 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'm not saying get rid of presentation. I'm not saying graphics and scripts
should be removed from pages. I'm saying don't use markup to assert
behavioural styles and expect it to work in the future: because it won't
(hooray!). The revolution of
separating style from content didn't start with me. It started when markup
was born, and it is about to recieve a second wind with the SW. In other
words, all of this presentation markup junk wont be supported anymore soon -
and good riddens to bad rubbish is all I can say.

> Sean, I am a member, but not so sponsored by an employer, I am an
> individual ...

So am I!

> 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 know. That's one of the main things bugging me. I'm not saying "get rid of
style, or fancinifcation", I'm just saying it's illegal to us markup for
presentation, so separate the style from the content. It's really not that
hard to understand, so I'm not sure why I have had to spend hours trying to
clarify it...still, heigh ho.
I'd like to give a new example:-

     <b>bold text</b>
     <strong>strong text</strong>

What is the difference? Let's say I didn't know what HTML was. By looking at
the source code, I could tell probably deduce what <strong> means, but what
is this <b> thing?  I don't know. That is the principle of the Semantic Web:
everything should have a meaning, and if it has meaning, attach style to it
depending on that meaning. BTW: The vision of the Semantic Web was created
by the same guy who invented the WWW, Tim Berners-Lee.
To sum up, you would never be able to create an XML language based on the
principles that you so steadfastly stick to, and that's your loss, not mine.
If you want to go ahead and believe that behavioural based Web browsers rule
the world, then that is fine by me as well, but *please*, *please*, *please*
first consider why the core creators/designers/founders and also the most
experienced Web architects all disagree with you.

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 Monday, 20 November 2000 05:15:43 UTC