Tim, > 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 will disagree with you right here. Kynn has asked some very pertinent questions - and good questions too. For me, it has highlighted that there is a perception that XHTML is somehow more accessible by default than HTML, but there seems to be no firm factual basis for that opinion/belief/perception. The main question is still: You believe XHTML is more accessible than HTML - why? Its fine for you to believe that - but to use it as one of the points raised against the RNIB, without being able to substantiate that belief/perception/opinion only serves to degrade the quality of the criticism to the RNIB for their choices. > I don't want to discredit you. And I have no intention of doing similar either. I follow both your blogs and websites - because you both share knowledge freely and willingly, and that knowledge about accessibility, web standards and other web-related technologies is something I am keenly interested in. > I just want to make accessible web-sites So do we all on this list. However when your definition of an accessible website clashes with (IMO) a more generally accepted definition to the extent that it is difficult to reconcile both view points, then it makes it harder for us to sell accessibility to website owners. May I make the suggestion that both you and Kynn take a breather from this thread for a couple of days. Then have a read through of the thread again after that -- you'll see you both have strong beliefs (which is good), but have you considered the factual basis for that belief? May I then also suggest you author an article about why you consider XHTML to be more accessible than HTML. Mike.Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 05:25:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC