Re: I don't get it, perhaps you could include an expanded explanation in a textual message, now that our machine protocol has broken down.
My mother does this all the time. :-) On 8 Apr 2005, at 14:23, Bill de hÓra wrote: :) Only that it's common enough (in my part of the world anyway) to send short messages in subject lines that end with 'eom'. The point is that people do communicate solely through subject lines in email. I think that probably lends weight to your position. cheers Bill
Re: PaceCoConstraintsAreBad
Walter Underwood wrote: --On Friday, April 08, 2005 01:33:20 AM -0400 Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Accessibility is a non-starter absent expert opinion or substantially similar formats. Frankly, the notion that remote content constitutes an accessibility concern is absurd. Might as well write off the whole Web. No, non-accessible designs are non-starters. ... The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect. -- Tim Berners-Lee http://www.w3.org/WAI/ Is that expert enough for you? Walter, you are missing my point. You've said it yourself: Maybe summaries are optional, but not because accessibility is optional.[0] Robert Sayre [0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13600.html
Re: PaceCoConstraintsAreBad
--On April 8, 2005 6:59:47 PM -0400 Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter, you are missing my point. You've said it yourself: Maybe summaries are optional, but not because accessibility is optional.[0] That was in reply to a proposal to make accessibility an optional profile, and to make summaries required only in that profile. That approach is unacceptable. I would read my comment as regardless of your position on summaries, accessibility is required. Local textual summaries are rather common on the web. The a tag, for example. Current accessibility practice is to make the anchor text understandable out of context. In other words, to make it a summary of the linked resource. Even if the remote resource is text! For the img tag, the alt tag is used to provide a local, textual equivalent. Again, this is required practice for accessibility. Same thing for graphs, charts, audio, and video. These are top-level requirements. They fit on the WAI pocket card. There are ten quick tips and five of them are about local textual equivalents: http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips/ wunder -- Walter Underwood Principal Architect, Verity
Re: PaceCoConstraintsAreBad
Walter Underwood wrote: Local textual summaries are rather common on the web. The a tag, for example. Current accessibility practice is to make the anchor text understandable out of context. In other words, to make it a summary of the linked resource. Even if the remote resource is text! For the img tag, the alt tag is used to provide a local, textual equivalent. Again, this is required practice for accessibility. Same thing for graphs, charts, audio, and video. These are top-level requirements. They fit on the WAI pocket card. There are ten quick tips and five of them are about local textual equivalents: An Atom Entry without content or summary still has a title. Even more precisely, the link element contains a 'title' attribute. There's two local summaries for you. As I've pointed out already, none of the most current W3C formats *require* textual metadata, from a schematic perspective. This is because accessibility is a social issue, rather than an interop issue. Insisting that constraint in the schema is there for accessibility's sake without explaining the *exact* reason is at best doing accessibility a disservice. I want the to know the precise technical reason for these requirements. No one has given one. We all agree that accessibility is important. Please don't respond to me by saying that accessibility is important. Robert Sayre
