- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:58:39 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
getting back on topic, if I may be so bold as to try and boil down your points adrian: people look to the W3C with regards to (accessible) standards, but you don't agree with that view because a) up until version 4 HTML was not accessible; b) HTML/XHTML is limited due to its inherent tree structure; c) CSS does not (yet) support more (complex?) layouts, has confusing/inconsistent naming of style rules, and is not a programming language leaving b) aside (although, in marking up content, i have to admit i have never come across a situation in which the tree-like structure of HTML has limited me, but maybe that's just because i'm stuck in the paradigm)...my question is: so what's the alternative? accepting that the W3C has, for better or worse, brought about some form of conformity and standard, what would your suggested course of action be now that you feel it has gone stale? a completely new standards body? an approach similar to WHATWG (we'll just go off and make HTML 5)? and crucially in my view: how is any alternative going to get broad industry adoption if even years down the line browsers like IE haven't even fully implemented certain aspects of HTML (sensible support for OBJECT, or ABBR for instance) and CSS 2? -- Patrick H. Lauke _____________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 23:58:40 UTC