Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 17:28:39 -200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: error msg
<jaygee> wrote:
> Problem is that "illegal" is only advisory
- precisely, an I wonder if it shouldn't be more binding.
But then, some reflection:
> and HTML code which fails to
> meet the W3C standard doesn't stop a browser from displaying the page. In
> these circumstances site designers can, and do, ignore the standard
> without penalty.
- this now may risk to fall into the logic which makes inaccessibility:
that (some) browsers *can* do "more" than parsing correct HTNL is just
fine: *if* this is used in an "open" way, that is, offering the additional
functionality without excluding accessibility at the standardised level.
The latter though is what is pushed by the tendential monopolists, and
all too eagerly accepted by "information technology mangers" and even
their subjects, the "user", as "modern" (what it is not: it's a
stone-old pattern of rip-off and slicing the dices).
// Heimo Claasen // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // Brussels 2000-07-04
The WebPage of ReRead - and much to read ==> http://www.inti.be/hammer
********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list,
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word
Unsubscribe
as the subject.
You MUST use the same address with which you subscribed!
********************************************************
