- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:49:29 -0700
- To: Tim Roberts <tim@wiseguysonly.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, tina@greytower.net
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 12:24 AM, Tim Roberts wrote: > They demonstrate many points I have raised, and you won't refute > because there is nothing to refute. I am not being petty; the > arguments are good and I encourage people to read them. Why didn't you quote this paragraph, which is directly relevant to the discussion we've been having? "By itself, XHTML is not necessarily any more accessible than HTML; depending on how you create the page and what elements and attributes you use, you could create a highly accessible page, or a highly inaccessible page. The use of XHTML itself (or XML) does not automatically guarantee a page's accessibility." Why did you arrange three quotes out of order and out of context from the other page? Why did you neglect to point out the context of these statements -- delivered to a non-technical audience for whom valid HTML itself is a large problem? That context sheds light on this statement: "XHTML -- Extensible HyperText Markup Language -- is the reformulation of HTML according to the rules of XML. XHTML is a clean, structured version of HTML that allows for greater separation of content and presentation, and compatibility with XML tools." As seen in the slide which accompanied the presentation http://access.idyllmtn.com/csun2003-kbartlett/beyondhtml10.html the particular point is on the evolution of HTML from the start of the Web (starting with HTML 2.0 on the slide) to the present. Nothing there supports your contention that XHTML has inherent accessibility features over HTML. (And, even if it did state something to that effect -- which it doesn't -- all you'd be "proving" is what I thought back in 2002 when the paper was written. I -could- have changed my mind, but I haven't really.) C'mon, kid. These Stupid Google Tricks where you just happen to quote some guy named "Kynn Bartlett" to support your side of the argument are degrading to the discussion and to your yourself. If you really want to know what I think, you can ask me. If your goal instead is to discredit me, well, you can keep on trying, but so far it hasn't worked yet. And even if you did -- the point isn't whether or not you can find what you perceive to be an inconsistency in what I've stated. It's whether or not not XHTML is provably better for accessibility than HTML. It's not, can we go on to the next issue, or are you going to find something I wrote in 1999 which contradicts this? --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 03:44:00 UTC