W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: Text email newsletter standard

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:32:01 -0600
To: "Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF01874CE1.CE4EA98B-ON86256F64.005E26F8-86256F64.0060515F@us.ibm.com>
Patrick, I got your apology note on WCAG applying to the Web.

It's your second sentence that even further supports my complaint against 
a level 1 requirement against structured markup for plain text:

> What if somebody is reliant on plain text email, due to whatever
> equipment/software they're using?

You, I and even david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com are sending and 
receiving text emails just fine without any additional markup or 
"standard". Johnny Apple Seed said: "I acknowledge that we need a text 
standard." but without any additional rationale.  Sure, we could slightly 
improve the usability with some more standardized mark-up for the content. 
 But is a paragraph tag or +++ heading really a level 1 requirement when a 
line break has been working just fine.  Remember we are talking about the 
text content of the e-mail, web page, newsletter, not the header with the 
sender, receiver, date, etc. 

If I did a quick comparison between the TEN standard and basic HTML, is 
TEN really necessary?  Seems like just another markup scheme when compared 
to the source view of HTML.  And by the way, why subject the user to all 
that funny markup, why not just use the HTML browser to remove it and just 
present the plain text?

How is this TEN versions of a newsletter any better than the HTML version 
following it?  Isn't <h1> more intuitively a heading tag than +++?

- ISSUE 55, JULY 2004.


01: Supermarket web sites fail basic checks
- Just one in five offers accessible service.

Section two: 'The inbox' - Readers' forum.
08: Double plight ? developing world issues; 09: Money talks ? 
banking tips; 10: Bridge building ? card games

[HTML version follows]

- ISSUE 55, JULY 2004.</h1

<h2>ISSUE 55 CONTENTS.</h2>

<li>Supermarket web sites fail basic checks
- Just one in five offers accessible service.</li>

<h2>Section two: 'The inbox' - Readers' forum.
<li>Double plight ? developing world issues; 
<li>Money talks ? banking tips; 
<li>Bridge building ? card games

Phill Jenkins
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2004 17:32:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:23 UTC