- From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- Date: 18 Oct 2002 08:22:33 -0400
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > I would think not. From the point of view of HTML and ordered lists, it
> > couldn't be less important how the items are called. With a structured
>
> The problem that HTML has in this area is that it is being used to make
> legal documents, particularly national legislation, accessible, and these
> use use section and paragraph numbers as their "hyperlinks". Unfortunately,
> the nature of legal documents is that you cannot safely change their
> appearence in this respect, so section 3a(4) has to remain that, not
> become blue underlined "Use of HTML in Legal Documents".
One of the most compelling examples to go by here on this.
List item labels are *part of content*. It is a separate question how
an author undertakes to generate those identifiers, but CSS should not
be part of it.
> Using something like DOCBOOK . . .
> . . . destroys the accessibility.
It's off topic here, but I disagree that DocBook source is
inaccessible. Whether a given individual has reasonable means to
access it depends on whether the individual has Norman Walsh's
[http://docbook.sourceforge.net/] free style sheets or something
equivalent.
-- Bill
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 08:22:56 UTC