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 justification for then bringing the site up to date, when there
were techniques and strategies for future proofing? What I am saying
is it is better right now to drop tags like <b> and <i>
because they are useless to screen readers and a waste of time for
future compatibility, when other tags are more appropriate
<strong> and <em>. That's my point.
With XSLT, making the change shouldn't be difficult; that's one of the
advantages of XHTML. But then I'd be careful with strong if I were you.
They're thinking of giving strong the ax.
If you mean "STRICT" as a proper noun, I disagree because it's
part of the XHTML1.0 STRICT DTD. If, on the other hand, you mean
"STRICT" as an adjective, then I totally agree. One problem with all
caps is that there is a loss of semantic meaning; a common problem with
presentational mark-up.
What I am saying is the basic philosophy behind
the STRICT DTD is separation of structure and presentation, and that
that approach has a ROI in content management and deployment,
especially when sites have to be redesigned and regenerated.
Once a DTD is finalized, the philosophies which went into creating it
cease being relevant. Philosophy is a matter of grays; a collection of
rules for a computer to follow are black and white. Where philosophy
can come into play is in how to follow those rules, including, as in
this case, which to ignore. The tools has been provided (the DTD); what
can and can not be done with it is not open to debate. How to use it is
where the question lies. And I believe it's there that we can find
agreement.
You can do that even with XHTML1.0 Transitional.
On large projects, Strict will always be more
efficient and have a better ROI over a number of SDLCs.
I wasn't saying what is best; just what's possible.
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 WCAG!? My impression was the opposite.
|
