- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:18:02 -0800
- To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
- Cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 03:43 PM 3/9/01 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>With XHTML 2.0, there is no need to retain the legacy
This is all very wonderful except for the use of the present tense. If you
had said "...there will be no need..." there'd be no quibble.
The *several-year-lag* between now and when there not only *is* such a
thing as XHTML 2.0 but there are browsers/validators/users/ of it makes
such diversive/divisive discussions like the present HUGE thread
inevitable. What is said about the inadequacies of using <table> for
positioning makes sense to everybody except the vast majority of our audience.
Not to say we mustn't do what we have to but like the years it is taking to
specify/publicize/train/debug CSS, the same will happen with this and other
legacy/deprecated/semantically-inadequate/+ techniques.
If it were something as simple as changing the price of postage without
being swamped with overuse of the "returned for insufficient postage"
rubber stamp, it might be OK but we have to overcome a built-in set of
blindless-related mental prejudices and it will take
time/patience/understanding of the mindset that holds an enormous backlog
of "seeing is believing", etc. "logic".
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 04:19:47 UTC