W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: B vs Strong

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:25:18 -0500 (EST)
To: Davey Leslie <davey@inx-jp.org>
cc: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101190320020.12725-100000@tux.w3.org>
Before this degenerates into another pointless flame war...

I don't think Kynn has said XHTML is a waste of time. I do see him saying
that XML in general is more useful than HTML in general. As it happens, I
find it easiest to collaborate with people if I use a form of HTML, and I
find it easiest to actually have stuff that works for proper semantic control
and so on if I use XML. The result is that I get pretty much the best of both
worlds with XHTML (I use rather more attributes and fewer elements to carry
semantics than I would really like, but it's a compromise for the real

I also consider that there is an open question about b and strong (for
example). Kynnn is right insofar as they are more or less understood
interchangeably, and worrying about them too much is missing the forest for
the trees. Charles Munat an others have poinjted out that there is value in
getting the finer points of philosopical approaches to work, and this one
happens to be easy. So it is a low-hangiung fruit, and if it isn'' especially
valuable in terms of user outcomes at the moment at least it can get people
thinking about why not...

just some thoughts. There's a lot of value in talking about what works and
doesn't, nstead of trying to figure out who is saying it.

Charles McCN

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Davey Leslie wrote:


  Twice recently you've mentioned that you consider XHTML to be "obsolete."
  As far as I can tell, the W3C considers XHTML 1.0 to be the current W3C
  Recommendation. Also, I pulled this off their site:

  "But make no mistake! HTML is not designed to be used to control these
  aspects of document layout. What you should do is to use HTML to mark up
  headings, paragraphs, lists, hypertext links, and other structural parts of
  your document, and then add a style sheet to specify layout separately, just
  as you might do in a conventional Desk Top Publishing Package. "

  Now, I'm not a hot shot expert with lots of fancy titles--I'm just a guy
  down in the virtual trenches trying to figure which voice to listen to: the
  voice that says there is a reasoned consensus about best practices; or the
  voice that says it doesn't really matter because the situation is so screwed
  up anyway--Bobby doesn't really work, validation doesn't really mean
  anything, and WYSIWYG-ed pages are good enough.

  The later is what I hear you saying and it puts me in a heck of a bind.
  You're one of the experts, right?

  This is not theoretical or academic to me. This is about keeping the lights
  on. I'm trying to give my customers the best value I can...and so stay in


  Thus spake Kynn Bartlett on 01.1.19 2:27 PM at kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com:

  > But I have no idea why anyone claiming to be an expert web designer
  > in the year 2001 would sit here and tell me that "HTML is for
  > structure, CSS is for presentation!"  Please!  XML is for
  > structure, and XSL is for producing appropriate, accessible final
  > form presentation for specific user agents.

Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 03:25:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:11 UTC