RE: Linear reading order

> Yes, and this is also true for user agents that do support a style
> language, but which don't apply the author's style declarations.

Well, that's every browser in existence, since all of them have gaps in 
CSS support.

> Perhaps what we need is:
> 
> Structure can be derived programmatically without analysing the layout
> or presentation of the content.

Well, that does it. You've just officially stated that CSS isn't important 
and can be ignored completely. In other words, if it doesn't work 
perfectly in Lynx, it flunks.

We've talked about this before. We're *encouraging* authors to use CSS. 
And in fact they always are in CSS-aware browsers (which is everything 
these days save for Lynx, Links, and W3M), even if they do not specify a 
stylesheet themselves, because browsers have their own embedded default 
CSS.

Moreover, CSS can affect and generate content, as through display: none, 
visibility: hidden, and content-before:.

Linear reading order is a 1997-era concept based on exceedingly simple 
1997-era HTML. We don't live in that world anymore. Why is it so hard to 
get rid of outdated WCAG 1.0 provisions in 2.0?

-- 

    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 16:01:39 UTC