Re: <font color="blue"> (was ISSUE-32)

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Shelley Powers<shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> But if HTML WG succeeds in removing virtually every last bit of
> accessibility markup in HTML5,

Mind explaining what you mean by "virtually every last bit" here? It
sounds pretty inflammatory to me. If you suspect someone is working
towards a different goal than making the web accessible for all then
please come out and say so.

> what are the negative consequences of
> continuing to use the accessibility markup, and the new accessibility
> markup (and RDFa, and so on), other than we don't get a little gold
> star of conformity?

I'll repeat a reply I sent to John Foliot in a private email recently:

"As I understand it it's up to any and all HTML consumer to decide what
they want to do when a parse error is reached.

I can only speak for one consumer of HTML 5, the firefox web browser.
We do not plan to take any action on parse errors, or DOM errors.

As I also work with Henri Sivonen, I happen to know that the validator
that he is writing (and I believe have been contracted by W3C to
maintain), will report all parse errors by reporting them back to the
user, but it will also continue parsing in order to find more errors.
However it won't report the page as conforming unless there are no
parse errors."

For what it's worth, I can't think of a way that the spec *could*
mandate a specific behavior for non-conforming vs. conforming markup
in a productive manner. Even the XML spec is very vague on what to do
with non-conforming documents. Do you display as much as you've loaded
to that point. Do you only retain what you've displayed so far (which
could be slightly less than you've parsed. Do you replace what's
currently being displayed with an error message? Are you not allowed
to display anything until you know the document is conforming?

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 22:27:56 UTC