- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:16:31 +0000 (UTC)
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> It is true that SGML does not define well-formedness, but if you say
> that a well-formed document is essentially "one that can unambiguously
> be parsed to create a logical tree in memory" (Jon Bosak, at
> http://www.isgmlug.org/n3-1/n3-1-18.htm), then you can apply this
> concept also to SGML.
OK, so let me understand this: The Working Group is contemplating issuing
a vague and counterfactual guideline based on one person's blog posting,
but is prepared to argue for hours that concepts like "structural" and
"semantic" are undefined (or the opposite, already defined), even after a
mountain of published evidence to the contrary is provided?
I guess this is again about who makes a proposal rather than the content
of the proposal. Content (or even making basic sense) never seems to be a
barrier for some guideline proponents.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
--This.
--What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 17:16:45 UTC