Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

> >Can you cite a reference for that fact (i.e. the definition)?
>
> This is from the definition of <font> in HTML 4.01:
> size  = cdata [CN]
> Deprecated.

If it's deprecated then there isn't much problem as far as I'm concerned: it
won't be in XHTML 1.1 ;-)

> Background and font are semantic because they convey content and
> meaning which is important to the author.  Graphical content and
> visual formatting content are valuable information and not necessarily
> just "window dressing."

True, but the problem is in the language definition. Whereas something like
<font> only specifies exactly what needs to be changed, why not just say
that it needs to be changed generically (e.g. <strong>) and then apply style
elsewhere?

> >      <strong class="big"> and
> >      @media screen { strong.big { font-weight: normal; font-size:
1.2em; } }
> >but that's hardly an ideal solution.
>
> That's a hack that abuses <strong>, CSS, and class, though. :)

True. We need RDF, for stuff like this. I suppose we have to ask "why do we
want this bit of text to be 'big'?". All current methods are hacks (<font>,
<big>, <strong class="big">), but if something needs to be bigger, there
must be a reason. Once we have found that reason, it must be possible to
include the reason in the markup and add style based on that meaning.

> Why do you think it's semantic?  There is nothing semantic about
> <big>.  It's a purely presentational tag.

I agree: we should get rid of it as well as <b> and <i> (and <small>).

> Yep, and it can also call in parallel edaptors to convert images (if
> so desired) to alter them to specific color settings.  For example,
> if someone's color blind, we can invoke a filter program to bring out
> the color for that specific person's contrast needs.

Not bad!

> Sean, if Opera is an option for you, you will want to look into it.

I have Opera 4.02. I don't use it all that often ...

> Background and font are semantic because they convey content and
> meaning which is important to the author.

Very good point: and in that case find some other way to express those
semantics (i.e. Semantically, rather than using presentation elements). It's
just not viable to use something like <b> rather than <strong>. Can you
offer me any advantages of using <b> rather than <strong>? Implementation
factors aren't an issue here, son't forget; I mean what are the
philisophical reasons that you believe <b> is better to use than <strong>?
I look at it the other wat round because I believe Semantic markup can be
interpreted much more broadly, and therefore adds a range of accessibility
to the element. If the author wants all <strong> elements to be presented as
bold text, then it is up to them to say so, but at least it can be
overidden.

BTW:, by saying:
> Background and font are semantic because they convey content and
> meaning which is important to the author.
You are slightly contradicting:
> Why do you think it's semantic?  There is nothing semantic about
> <big>.  It's a purely presentational tag.
but I get what you mean.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving for all of you in the USA!

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, 23 November 2000 12:34:21 UTC