RE: [166] Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets

To combine two messages here:

>>Some standards-compliant methods of displaying images purely using 
>>CSS would be disallowed by a surface reading of the paragraph 
>>quoted above.
>
>Yes. There are ways that comply with the specifications of CSS and 
>HTML of including content that I would argue should not be used, for 
>accessibility reasons.

Examples found in real-world sites, please? (Examples *plural*.)

>Disagree that this is relevant to whether the HTML is valid or not. 
>Disagree that this is a hypothetical problem (although it surprises 
>me that it isn't).

Nobody has been able to provide real-world counterexamples.

>Disagree that recommending against one use of CSS (or HTML for that 
>matter) is the same as saying "don't use CSS (or HTML)". Disagree 
>with Eric Meyer about float requiring a particular markup order (and 
>provide proof of why he is wrong).

He's only the world's leading independent authority (i.e., non-W3C 
authority) on cascading stylesheets, having written two books. I'll 
forward the message and see what he has to say.

>I don't work for WAI, I don't speak for WAI, I don't represent WAI.

Yeah, we know, despite Charles's return address being charles@w3.org 
(check the original message headers). Something about Fundación 
Sidar. We know that.

>I agree that the requirements should not be fashioned around any 
>paarticular authoring tool. The requirement is to avoid doing 
>something which happens to be stupid, but also happens to be 
>perfectly valid according to all the
>relevant specifications except WCAG, and was even done by a tool 
>(not just a coupe of perverse authors).

I agree in principle, but it will be difficult for WAI, as opposed to 
some other group at W3C, to impose semantically-correct Web authoring 
rather than syntactically-correct authoring (e.g., <h1> vs. 
<p><strong><big>).

>This is not perfect either - the default stylesheet for SVG doesn't 
>work for any useful images.

Anyone care to explain that?

>And just to remind Joe, who seems to identify me with WAI,

Uh, no. Whenever possible, when a contributor to this esteemed list 
makes a statement that WAI (read well: WAI) is apt to simply accept 
and run with, I admonish WAI (nota bene: WAI) not to do so. In those 
cases, I respond to an author's remarks *to* the list and *to* WAI.

>I do not work for WAI, I do not speak for WAI, I do not represent WAI.

Yeah, we know.

>My participation in WAI activities is exactly the same as Joe's - as 
>somebody who participates in the work and claims to have some 
>knowledge about accessibility and techniques for achieving it.

I don't merely claim to have "some knowledge," I actually do.

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Weblogs and articles <http://joeclark.org/weblogs/>
     <http://joeclark.org/writing/> | <http://fawny.org/>

Received on Sunday, 22 June 2003 12:19:55 UTC