Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

Sean,

	First of all, I've never take an HTML "course", just training in how to do
it. That and using a bunch of HTML books got me where I am now. Even if
that "where" is, to you, an illegal place and perception. If my entry into
the world of HTML followed the degradation of Tim Bernier-Lee's original
model, I'd say his model is defunct. It's almost a decade ago. And the web,
rather than falling under it's new weight, is blooming. 

For the most part, web pages aren't marked up all that much anyway. Most
authors just write, and hang it in place. 

I was amused by your example of the awfulness of <b> ... as opposed to
<strong>. I don't understand your problem. <b> is command language and not
presented to the user. It is only read by machine to do what the command
says to do, and show the emphasis on that word/s. As long as the command
goes to the machine, it's up to the machine if it follows the command by
just "showing" the action on the screen, or if it "shows" the action on any
output. Whether the command is one letter or one word is immaterial to the
action of carrying out the command. 

Destruction carries a large meaning, and hardly applies to a discussion of
whether a machine command should be a single letter or a whole word.
Destruction would be taking away from the web the capacity it already has,
to present mark-up to aide those who need it. Expanding the usefulness of
the HTML code to cover more than perhaps originally envisioned by whomever
is credited this week with inventing the web, is progress. 


>> 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.

Then, Sean, let work from where we are in agreement. Telling me that my
solution is "illegal" isn't going anywhere. Telling me that something that
is perfectly well done in HTML should be moved out of HTML where it doesn't
work very well anyway, isn't changing my mind one bit. Among other
problems, you are introducing the great chance of errors by creating two
sets of code. The idea that those two codes are needed because the visual
presentation "must" be separate from the basic document, makes no sense at
all.  Why separate something that works in one document. There is no
evidence I've seen that separating the code results in an improvement other
than responding to new "code" that should be incorporated into HTML instead
of put in a separate document. 

If your perception that visual aides are "fancyfying" the web, then your
perception needs an overhaul! You don't go round kicking canes out from
under little old ladies, do you? Why kick at "canes" on the web?

Sean, this discussion probably should move off list, since the outcome is
likely to be that we will agree to disagree,  but whenever I try to send to
your "mysterylights" address, it crashes my Eudora. If you write from your
"other account" I'll reply to that address. 

					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 Monday, 20 November 2000 07:38:58 UTC