- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:01:07 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
> the message had been received and will be handled. No other reply, no fix > > despite my explicit explanation of the situation and the way to correct > it. It's a page by the Supreme Court of Finland. My conclusion: nobody > there even understands the issue, or cares to consult anyone who does. That sounds much more like the big organisation effect. Generally, it is easy to get pages maintained by individuals fixed, unless they simply want to be awkward, but, with a large commercial or business organisation, if webmaster email is read at all, it will either hit a bureaucrat, whose, job is to eliminate as much correspondence as cheaply as possible, or it will hit someone who is doing things in a particular way because that is what management dictate, and he has no authority to think. You'll get the same results if you complain about accessibility problems. > > I'm afraid language markup is a lost cause. It is in reality much more > reliable to deduce the language from the actual content, heuristically. > For short fragments of text, things might be different. But who wants to The commercial web design world is a what you see is what you get world, so any semantic markup is only done for political correctness/contract compliance reasons. HTML exists as a popular medium for reasons that bear little relationship to its design aims, and, in my view, more to marketing mistakes by Adobe (being late onto the internet and having a business model too dependent on selling authoring tools, thus locking out students from creating documents).
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 17:20:42 UTC