RE: Skip links ARE a markup problem (was RE: Skip links should be a markup problem)

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> 
> Again, I would argue profiles are the way to go, as they offer an
> extensible way to add very specific link types, rather than trying to
> tie down the spec too much in attempting to cover all
> possible present
> and future scenarios ... a bit like the eXtensible nature of X
> technologies and their DTDs/Schemas.

I absolutely agree... Except...

1) from all apparent observations, you don't even need to have the profile,
as long as "something" recognizes the link type.  This I have noted with P3P
(P3Pv1)... Where both Internet Explorer and Mozilla "recognize" and thus
"use" the relative link value (albeit in different ways).

2) I had suggested a more "formalization" of navigational relative links for
no other reason then to get them "out there"... To make some noise.  If the
W3C went to the trouble of making an official announcement, perhaps a
revision to XHTML 1.1 (say XHTML 1.1.1, or 1.2, or what-have-you) then it
would potentially make the rounds; if nothing else we ourselves could start
it via the various blogs, lists, and "developer" sites: AListApart (what's
going on there?), Zeldman, Shaun Inman, slashdot, etc..  With the right type
of "spin", we could quickly begin to see more and more mainstream sites
using them in lieu of the current "skip nav" <a> anchors.

It's about marketing/perception... Get the buzz going, get developers to
start using them, see Firefox extensions and IE 7 "enhancements" moving
towards a better, more "universal" navigational scheme.  While we can use
profiles, the reality is they are more theoretical than practical at this
point in time... How do we move it forward?
JF
--
John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-267-1983 / 1-866-932-4878 (North America)

Received on Thursday, 28 April 2005 00:01:25 UTC