- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:19:06 -0400
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
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