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.
|