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
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
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
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
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
