Speaking of plain text posts to this mailing list, I'm receiving an
increasing number of posts which contain only a signature block.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
Geoff Deering wrote:
That is a very very poor quiz, and shows the author does not
understand WCAG1 very well at all. Actually, it shows more that he
does not know how to form the proper questions.
The quality of the questions and quiz aside, why do you think the
author doesn't understand
Andy,
You might want to run those by me since I help develop the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines.
Lee Roberts
-Original Message-
From: Andy Budd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Styling Text... (Andy Budd
Title: RE: [WSG] Styling Text... (Andy Budd Accessibility Quiz)
If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything at all
(please)
-Original Message-
From: Andy Budd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
Hi all
WCAG is on topic -please discuss all you want, but address the topic,
not the person. The list is here to provide a constructive discussion on
web standards and accessibility. If you want to be destructive or have a
beef with the author, don't do it here as your subscription will be
On 7/3/04 11:38 PM Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
It is better practice to stop using such elements, especially when there are
other elements that serve the same purpose, but are more semantically correct
and accessible.
Would someone please post a URL to a rousing, thorough,
Geoff Deering wrote:
Yes, correct for XHTML1.x, but I can't see it in your reference to
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-inline-text.html#sec_9.12. All the
font style elements have been removed in XHTML2.
The reference was in regards to sub and sup which currently are valid
XHTML2 without any
-Original Message-
From: Mordechai Peller
Geoff Deering wrote:
It is better practice to stop using such elements, especially when
there are other elements that serve the same purpose, but are more
semantically correct and accessible
I agree with the exception of sub and sup
-Original Message-
From: Rick Faaberg
On 7/3/04 11:38 PM Geoff Deering [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent
this out:
It is better practice to stop using such elements, especially
when there are
other elements that serve the same purpose, but are more
semantically correct
and accessible.
Geoff Deering wrote:
They are not part of the "Font Style Elements", they are part of the
"Special Inline Elements". But this shows how even the W3C specs can be
misleading, cause FONT is part of the Special Inline Elements", yet B, I, U
etc are "Font Style Elements".
I've done some
-Original Message-From:
Mordechai Peller
Geoff
Deering wrote:
They are not part of the "Font Style Elements", they are part of the
"Special Inline Elements". But this shows how even the W3C specs can be
misleading, cause FONT is part of the Special Inline Elements", yet B, I, U
Geoff Deering wrote:
I have no disagreement with this at all. What I
am saying is if you develop a large site, that is very well designed
and engineered, then, when XHTML2 comes out there are found to be HUGE
benefits for using it (this is just hypothetical), then what is the
cost
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Mordechai
PellerSent: Monday, 5 July 2004 9:54 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] Styling
Text...Geoff Deering wrote:
I have no disagreement with this at all. What I am
Re
http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2004/07/quick_accessibility_quiz_now_with_prizes/index.php
Q1. There is no correct answer offered by
Andy.
For
starters, to comply with WAI-A youneed tocomply with all WCAG1
Priority 1 Checkpoints, for WAI-AA youneed tocomply with all WCAG P1
and 2
there is a note doesn't mean
anything.
Lee Roberts
From: Mordechai Peller
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 5:54
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [WSG] Styling
Text...
Geoff Deering wrote:
I
have no disagreement with this at all. What I am saying is if you
Chris Stratford wrote:
Since BUI etc... are all outlawed and now depreciated...
How do you style your inner P text?
[snip]
Actualy, they haven't changed since html 4.
Read all about it here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html
A small summary of the important inline elements:
Semantic
-Original Message-
From: Rick Faaberg
On 7/2/04 7:31 PM Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
I am just writing because I have been wondering if there is a
better way of
styling text.
Since BUI etc... are all outlawed and now depreciated...
How do you style your
Geoff Deering wrote:
It depends which DTD you are referencing as to whether they are deprecated
or not, but U is definitely deprecated in everything from HTML4 onwards.
And B and I are deprecated for future compatibility because they belong
in "Font Style Elements", which are all
Hey WSG,
I am just writing because I have been wondering if there is a better
way of styling text.
Since BUI etc... are all outlawed and now
depreciated...
How do you style your inner P text?
At the moment, when I have a paragraph and I want to bold a word, i
use: span class="bold"
And in
G'day
Use strong instead of b
Use em instead of i
Don't underline text - it will look like a link and confuse people
So a bold italic word which is also underlined is just: span class=bold
italic underlineword/span
Try strongemWord/em/strong
Or if you use the combination a lot, set up the
Message -
From: Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 12:31:37 +1000
Subject: [WSG] Styling Text...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey WSG,
I am just writing because I have been wondering if there is a better
way of styling text.
Since BUI etc... are all outlawed and now depreciated
On 7/2/04 7:31 PM Chris Stratford [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
I am just writing because I have been wondering if there is a better way of
styling text.
Since BUI etc... are all outlawed and now depreciated...
How do you style your inner P text?
And here I thought someone just the other
22 matches
Mail list logo
