- From: Brian Kelly <lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 09:29:39 +0100
- To: webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net, "'Brian Kelly'" <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Web Accessibility Initiative'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Bruce > Not to sound like a jerk, but the problems you are having relate to writing > *valid* html and have precious little to do with accessibility! Thanks for your comments - but the HTML and CSS are now valid, and the display bug in Netscape remains. As others have pointed out Netscape has problems with valid documents. > Add the doctype statement. > Replace the & in your URL encodings (inside of HREF's) with & and your > links will still work AND be valid html. > > I learned this trick from trying to create a link to Bobby that would test > my page live. See http://www.dors.state.md.us/test.html for an example. > (I have since stopped linking to Bobby on every page. I don't expect to > do this again unless CAST brings back an option for an easy-to-read and > simple "Bobby Approved" message. (BTW, Bobby STILL does not test for links > which are hidden by ALT="" -- which is why I posted that page in the first > place!) > > Once you take care of both of the above, the W3C validator should start to > report on the "real" errors on your page... I'll bet Net.Fame that once > you have a validated page the display inconsistencies with Navigator will > disappear! I think you owe me a Net.Fame (?) Brian > Yes, it would be nice if the W3C validator did not get hung up on "trivial" > html errors (especially ones that are repeated several times on a page). > But the tool works, and it's free and very fast. > > Yes, publishing GOOD html is more work than posting stuff that *probably* > will display as you expect. Writing accessible html is only trivially > harder than writing good html. Do you expect kudos for using a spell > checker on your documents? The fact that 99.9% of web pages don't validate > does not mean that there is not problems with this lazy practice! > > On Tuesday, October 19, 1999 10:12 AM, Brian Kelly [SMTP:lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk] > wrote: > > Hi Bruce > > Many thanks for the comments. Have now fixed all but 2 of the HTML > > errors (still need to add a doctype and not sure what to do about the > > URL encoding which the validator doesn't like). > > > > The CSS has now been tidied up. > > > > Unfortunately the display bug still appears in Netscape :-( > > > > I guess I'll have to get into how browsers support CSS parse trees, or > > provide some user-agent negotiation. > > > > As I've said previously on this list, I'm afraid I disagree with Kynn > > when he says writing accessible pages is easy. I think it's very > > time-consuming and difficult to follow the guidelines and cater for bugs > > in the browsers :-( > > (Although I'll keep on trying). > > > > Brian > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus > > UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, England, BA2 7AY > > Email: b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk URL: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ > > Homepage: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/b.kelly.html > > Phone: 01225 323943 FAX: 01225 826838 >
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 1999 04:31:18 UTC