W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:58:39 +0100
Message-ID: <42A4E32F.9060206@splintered.co.uk>
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 

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
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 23:58:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:25 UTC