Re: Structure Again! (not again ;)

> It seams to me that the list is losing its focus. It seams to be becoming
a
> discussion group about disability and web related attitudes

I agree. Feel free to blame me, it was a stupid point to bring up anyway. At
least I learned a valuable lesson...

This (from Kynn) is great:-
> this continued insistence that actual web designers' needs
> aren't worth shit is exactly why this group's "guidelines"
> (read: dogmatic fascist rules imposed by an elite few who
> only consider their own needs to be important and everyone
> else's to be insignificant in the fulfillment of their own
> personal vision of the web) are likely doomed to
> worthlessness.  At least, if we continue holding
> viewpoints such as those which William espouses.

So, in summary WCAG are worthless dogmatic fascist rules imposed by an elite
few...I'm not even going to dignify that with a response other than "Kynn,
what on earth are you doing in this group then? Are you trying to break down
the walls of the elite few and get rid of this dogmatic fascism that you
talk about?"

This is the best bit:-
> Current structural types _are_ insufficient.  You can't write an
> acceptable [...] web site in XHTML 1.0 Strict, even if it will
> be structurally sound.

Kynn, you're a member of the PF Group...tell the HTML WG that! Get them to
make XHTML usable.

> We were working towards trying to focus suggestions and comments by
> qualifying each one with a proposal. In other words instead of saying just
> "I do not like this" we add an alternative reversion or wording of a
> checkpoint, to qualify validate r feeling.

Yes, and that's how the WCAG rules came about. Hardly fascist is it?

Please feel free to moan at me in the Telecon for bringing these points up
(actually, I might not be able to make it anyway).

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

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 08:51:56 UTC