- From: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:52:35 -0500
- To: rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer)
- Cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, www-dom@w3.org
On Wednesday, 12/19/2001 at 03:36 PST, rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer) wrote: > Why is everyone so opposed to adding a level that is properly semantic? I suspect people are looking for a magic bullet which will work with existing, unmodified, badly coded web pages. Given that the WAI folks have issued other guidelines on how websites should be (re)written for accessiblity, that goal seems unreasonable even if it was achievable... and I doubt it's achievable. There's a reason HTML was originally so bare-bones; it was _intended_ to be semantic markup, which different browsers could style differently. Then everyone started adding features which defeated that goal. The proper solution is not to try to kluge around those features, but to abstract them back to the semantic layer and work with that. Which is part of what the XML and stylesheet efforts were all about. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Friday, 21 December 2001 10:54:09 UTC