Re: More references on XML/XHTML and accessibility

Fair enough Kynn,

This always seems to be the pattern with your posts to this list. Ever the
protagonist and getting abrasive and rude by the end.

I know we have had a history that many on the list are unsaware of, but I have
seen this same attitude develop throughtout your *discussions* with many other
people. I don't want to discredit you. I like both the articles.

I just want to make accessible web-sites and not have to deal with you again.   


P.S. Don't call me "kid". Be professional.On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:49:29 -0700,
Kynn Bartlett wrote
> 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
> 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 <>           
> Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain      
> Author, CSS in 24 Hours             
> Inland Anti-Empire Blog            
> Shock & Awe Blog                 

Open WebMail Project (

Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 04:11:16 UTC