A user account is required in order to edit this wiki, but we've had to disable public user registrations due to spam.
To request an account, ask an autoconfirmed user on Chat (such as one of these permanent autoconfirmed members).
Objections against CP for ISSUE-130: Difference between revisions
(Created page with 'The change proposal cites GMail as an argument to support layout tables, but Google's opinion is that GMail's use of layout tables should be considered a bug. We do not have a pr...') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The change proposal suggests that we should design authoring conformance criteria based on the cost of porting existing documents and applications to the new conformance criteria. However, this is misguided. Conformance criteria should be designed around best practices; legacy documents are already written and therefore would not benefit from improvements to QA tools such as validators in any case. | The change proposal suggests that we should design authoring conformance criteria based on the cost of porting existing documents and applications to the new conformance criteria. However, this is misguided. Conformance criteria should be designed around best practices; legacy documents are already written and therefore would not benefit from improvements to QA tools such as validators in any case. | ||
[[Category:W3C Issue]] | |||
Latest revision as of 03:05, 16 June 2011
The change proposal cites GMail as an argument to support layout tables, but Google's opinion is that GMail's use of layout tables should be considered a bug. We do not have a problem with it being considered non-conforming.
The change proposal says that a reason to allow layout tables is that not allowing them would require ATs to implement custom heuristics to detect layout tables. However, this is both false and not an issue:
- It is false because such heuristics would be required regardless of the authoring conformance criteria, as they are needed to best serve the user's needs for legacy content anyway, and
- It is not an issue because ATs already implement such heuristics anyway, so there is no extra cost.
The change proposal assumes that all accessibility-sensitive UAs are UAs with ARIA-supporting ATs based on platform accessibility APIs. This is false. Any UA that does not use the author-provided style sheets is affected by the use of layout tables, including text-mode Web browsers, speech-CSS browsers, and browsers that let authors disable author styles.
The change proposal suggests that we should design authoring conformance criteria based on the cost of porting existing documents and applications to the new conformance criteria. However, this is misguided. Conformance criteria should be designed around best practices; legacy documents are already written and therefore would not benefit from improvements to QA tools such as validators in any case.