- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:37:13 +0300
- To: www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>
On Sep 20, 2006, at 04:01, olivier Thereaux wrote: > On Sep 19, 2006, at 21:03 , Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> Don't use the proprietary <embed> tag. There's an excellent >>> article at "A List Apart" with the solution you need: http:// >>> www.alistapart.com/articles/byebyeembed >> >> Which is more important: spec-wise purity or real-world >> accessibility? >> http://weblogs.macromedia.com/accessibility/archives/2005/08/ >> in_search_of_a.cfm > > These two are not mutually exclusive, are they? According to the data presented in the cited document, they seem to be. > I would argue that compliance to specs is, to a large extent, a > good path toward real-world accessibility. A "good path towards" does not help much those who need real-world accessibility today. > From the document you quote above, I don't read "spec-compliant > methods (such as satay) are bad", I read that there are several > spec-compliant solutions which work with almost all the user agents. However, there's a non-spec-compliant solution that has an even broader reach and that causes no real harm compared to the spec- compliant solutions. > I hope your conclusion, as is mine, is not that the specs are > broken as soon as one implementation gets it wrong, but rather that > the situation is pretty good when only one implementation needs > fixing for a solution based on a standard to work across all user > agents. I don't think a spec is broken as soon as one implementation gets it wrong. I do, however, think that the spec is broken if it reinvents the wheel to deny actual existing practice and the new wheel doesn't get full support in 8 years. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 07:37:31 UTC