RE: Modularization

Damn! Considering how much time I spend with modularized XHTML, why didn't I
think of this?

This is an ideal refinement. Modularized accessibility.

I use the modularization of XHTML to teach it because it makes it much
easier to understand (everything is neatly organized in relatively
bite-sized chunks). In fact, I'm building a whole site to teach XHTML based
on this modularized approach.

I'm not worried about compliance. That's for government or the site
owner/developer's conscience to mandate. The real trick for me is to get the
best of both worlds, to eat our cake and have it, too.

Chas.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Joe Clark
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 2:42 PM
> To: WAI-GL
> Subject: Modularization
>
>
> As for Charles' idea to separate WCAG into three sections: Ladies
> and gentlemen, we have a winner.
>
> It doesn't require us to get a waiver from Tim Berners-Lee or to
> somehow violate our charter. We can still offer a single WCAG. But
> we can model ourselves after the XHTML kidz and offer a
> *modularized* WCAG.
>
> In this system, there would be a single container called the WCAG
> with three components (with whatever names we decide on).
>
> It would thus be possible for someone in the real world to claim
> compliance (a word I don't mind at all) with the whole WCAG or just
> modules 1 and 2, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 1 and 3, or 2 and 3.
>
> In reality, we're already modular: Think of Priority 1/2/3
> guidelines and Level A/AA/AAA conformance. What's a little more
> modularity among friends? I hear it's even legal in Islamic
> countries, and that a certain bar in Nairobi can be... *interesting*
> for modularists.
>
> This is surely the best idea I've heard all year.
>
>
> --
>         Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
>         Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques:
>         <http://joeclark.org/access/>
>
>

Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 18:13:41 UTC