- From: Harry Woodrow <harrry@email.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 11:06:04 +0800
- To: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>, <poehlman1@home.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Maybe the last post was a bit of an overstatement. HTML will without doubt continue for a long time as do all legacy technologies. The point I was trying to make was that the 2.0 guidelines have been writen now with access to many new techniques for making things accessible which did not exist when the 1.0 Guidelines were written. 2.0 presuposes that these technologies exist, it seems to me the reason that statements such as....until user agents support... are not so apparent. To use another context as we are really talking about discrimination, until two years ago in my town in order not to discriminate against people it was esential that alternative transport was provided (such as Multi purpose taxis) for people using wheelchairs who were unable to use busses. Suddenly someone got the bright idea of making bussess accessible. The old guidelines specifying alternate transport was needed suddenly became irrelevent, but of course they still apply when legacy busses are used. To me the web is the same. Once we sometimes had to provide basic alternatives and of course the guidelines had to specify this but now using available technology we can achieve the aim of not discriminating in another way, hence the new guidelines. Of course those who are writng the guidelines would be the best to answer what they intend. Harry Woodrow -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Scott Luebking Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2001 10:42 AM To: harrry@email.com; phoenixl@sonic.net; poehlman1@home.com; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: RE: FWD: CHI-WEB: Amazon's version for the Visually Impaired Hi, Oh, I thought that 2.0 was going to replace 1.0. Most standards seem to work that way. If the situal is as you mention, what about web pages generated from relational databases where XML is not involved? Scott > My understanding of the 2.0 Guidlines were that they did not apply at all to > HTML. HTML was covered by the 1.0 guidelines and the HTML 4 standards are > now fixed and no more work is to be done on them. As I understand it the > provision that text only sites should be a last resort still applies to HTML > sites. > THe 2.0 guidelines are designed to cover the changed circumstance that XML > is the current way to present content and Presentation is separated by such > technologies as Cascading Style Sheets. > This means that we cannot be refering to "one set of HTML code". > > Harry Woodrow
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 22:14:16 UTC