Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
generic XML + CSS would be meaningless without some third technology
that defines semantics (a DTD, XBL, etc)
Neither a DTD nor XBL define document semantics at all. A DTD only
defines the document syntax and structure. XBL is only a binding
language for attaching be
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Not wrong actually, Good screen-readers DO read the CSS to work out
various things, incuding to see if someting has a display:hidden. I do
acknowledge that this is an area that would have to be developed in
screen-readers but that does not invalidate the idea.
Knowing h
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Screen readers look at the structure of the document, which is clearly
defined as it's standardised in the HTML specification.
And they PRESENT it to someone with visual impairment, The
presentational properties should be set in the presentational layer
So by your logic
On 10 Feb 2006, at 19:14, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Stephen Stagg wrote:
And how, pray tell, would a screen reader know - based on a
series of presentational rules - what the meaning of a made-up
tag soup is?
The same way that they would with normal HTML, by reading the XML,
and the styles
Stephen Stagg wrote:
And how, pray tell, would a screen reader know - based on a series of
presentational rules - what the meaning of a made-up tag soup is?
The same way that they would with normal HTML, by reading the XML, and
the stylesheet and guessing, if an element has the font-weight:b
I'll try to be respectful :)
On 10 Feb 2006, at 01:01, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Stephen Stagg wrote:
I understand that this is already possible in most modern browsers
but it will never be used or properly implemented unless HTML is
dropped as a language. Worried about screen-readers? I do
Stephen Stagg wrote:
I understand that this is already possible in most modern browsers but
it will never be used or properly implemented unless HTML is dropped as
a language. Worried about screen-readers? I don't see why, the
screen-readers would have to parse the CSS to find clues about how
Yep... I agree, hence "web [...] recommendations are actually about"
rather than "accessibility is actually about". Specs are
purpose-agnostic (see pages that validate but are a semantic blight on
the face of the web)... ironically, guidelines (human-language,
practical documents) are actually more
Joshua Street wrote:
It IS meaningless for all intents and purposes. Consider a plain text
document: humans make a distinction between types of content,
computers do not... hence markup. Admittedly, we also use markup to
provide communication cues... but that's ancillary to the core of it.
Unpopu
On 2/9/06, Stephen Stagg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not meaningless, It is more readable than HTML, to a human. And
> when computers start to need to read websites automatically...
Humans read content, computers read markup. Humans don't read HTML
(excusing, perhaps, the rare breed that
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Stephen Stagg wrote:
flashmovie{ display:flash;}
and then your document reads:
This shows that you have very little understanding of how the display
property works; and probably little understanding of CSS in general.
That's already possible with existing css:
flashmo
Stephen Stagg wrote:
How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?
That's what the style-sheet is for. We are relying more and more on the
display: element of CSS, why not define a well-thought out and
extensible set of display types to replace the default behavior of many
c
Sorry, it's late in England. I'm gonna go to bed now :)How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?That's what the style-sheet is for. We are relying more and more on the display: element of CSS, why not define a well-thought out and extensible set of display types to replace the
How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?That's what the style-sheet is for. We are relying more and more on the display: element of CSS, why not define a well-thought out and extensible set of display types to replace the default behavior of many current tags. Want to include
Stephen Stagg wrote:
Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use styled
XML in the future?
How could you know what style to apply to meaningless content?
Effective styling depends on document semantics. Without semantics, you
may as well be using elements.
Effectively,
okies.
Ted
www.tdrake.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Marilyn Langfeld
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:46 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] [Please don't flame :)] HTML, XML what's the difference.
On Fe
On 08/02/06, Stephen Stagg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use
> styled XML in the future? It would be one helluva way to enforce
> standards, and we wouldn't have all this wrangling over exactly which
> element to use. HTML in itself is not
On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Stephen Stagg wrote:
Why do we need an HTML 5? Can't we dispose of HTML and just use
styled XML in the future? It would be one helluva way to enforce
standards, and we wouldn't have all this wrangling over exactly which
element to use.
_
Here's a start: htt
18 matches
Mail list logo
