Re: [48 hour] DRAFT Last Call comment Re: [XML 1.1] Allowable element names

At 08:28 PM 2002-07-07, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>I was trying to explain why there was no clearl conseensus one way or the
>other. I thought Al had summmed up neatly one side of the argument, and
>wanted to present a skeleton of the other.

Well, thank you both for the care with which you read the summary.
I have sent it to the comments inbox


PS: I debated about adding Bliss or fabric care icons to the third point to draw out
the access advantages of some neo-ideographs.  But I decided to avoid any last 
minute variations.  Bliss and the Unicode precedent are both reasonable things to 
bring in as we get the opportunity to follow up on the comment.

>I am sorry to have been dense. (Fail WCAG 14.1 - write clearly and simply. Do
>not pass go...)
>On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>>Charles McCathieNevile <> wrote
>>>> *  "no clear cut."
>>> CMN But that isn't a position the group has agreed on. A thumbs-up character
>>> or a smiley face is readable to a lot more people than using a non-zero
>>> integer or the keyword "true", although it does present problems that require
>>> resolution. But the argument is that absolute restrictions on names in XML
>>> 1.1 will not be the best outcome for accessibility.
>>I am confused (not uncommon!) Al's summary says "The discussion was inconclusive"
>>and gives a lot of reasons where unrestricted characters can cause problems, but
>>Charles is saying the opposite, that there was a conclusive decision reached that
>>unrestricted characters are positively good.
>>Sorry to be dense,
>>Rick Jelliffe
>Charles McCathieNevile  phone: +61 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
>Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
>(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Sunday, 7 July 2002 22:04:54 UTC