- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:36:34 +0200
- To: Ron van den Boogaard <ron@ronvdb.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Ron van den Boogaard wrote: >> You have not read my proposal and the reason behind it correctly. You seem >> to ignore the accessibility aspect of it, when the image turns of the >> images or the image is loaded with latency. Please read the older posts. >> > I read the older posts , Rest assured. I don't think standards should be > bothered with latency or not. > What we do need is as clean and as simple a mark-up as possible. Latency > on images have more to do with band-width, server anomalies and UA > imperfections. The code should not provide work-arounds for these things. > Latencies, disabled images, broken links, etc... those are inherent parts of the web, browsers, and thus CSS. If CSS doesn’t specify standin colours, then what language should (given that the background image is also loaded through CSS)? Surely it is presentation. Perhaps we would need a new ‘CSS-reality’ language for those things (using XML syntax, of course)? ;p I think that it is very important that standards work in real-world scenarios as well :). Clean and simple? Hehe, have you seen CSS lately? ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Sunday, 14 August 2005 22:36:35 UTC