[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

LYNX-DEV A vote that Lynx lead and not just follow standards

From: Al Gilman
Subject: LYNX-DEV A vote that Lynx lead and not just follow standards
Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 11:03:04 -0400 (EDT)

  From: address@hidden (Larry W. Virden, x2487)
  The pages were not compatible with HTML 3.2.   I ran sp with the
  latest HTML 3.2 DTD and fixed the problems that were identified.
  >You have taken out specific things (the TAB tags) that are understood
  >by Lynx but not by other browsers.  Why do you think this is an 
  My goal was to bring the files up to HTML 3.2 standards.  Tab is not
  a valid HTML 3.2 tag.  So to get the files to verify using the DTD,
  I needed to remove the tabs.  I really needed to remove the nbsp, but
  because it was more likely to cause major visual differences, I didn't.
Is there an actual problem with the presentation of the pages as they
were in any browser?

I have yet to grasp why TAB is something to fight for.  I mean this --
I have not re-read the whole archives of the IETF HTML mailing list
to know why this feather is one the eagle should not preen away.

On the more general principle, I very much value what Lynx has
done to implement features that are plausible candidates for
standardization, without waiting for someone else to provide the
"running code" that IETF standardization requires.

Fote's status report on the demise of the IETF HTML working group
as a place to go to resolve conflicts means that we have to negotiate
with the commercial players in the venues where we can get them
to deal.  The Web Access Initiative is a place where, 'though we
won't get them to admit they committed sins in 3.2, we will get them
to address what form reparations will take (so long as you don't 
call it that).

For the purposes of the WAI, wherever Lynx has running code that
we feel is a better idea, we should keep the code and keep good
example literature that demonstrates this is "running code."  It
is still possible that the Lynx list will be THE "running code"
example that teaches the how to open up an email-based
process to people who by dint of disability want to avoid email
volume at this level but _will contribute_ if empowered to
participate at their own pace.

I couldn't do that demonstration for the WAI if Fote hadn't
pro-actively implemented elements of the "Hoffman" Internet Draft
on the mailto: URL.  At the moment the is hesitant to get
out ahead of the pack and do their piece of the loop.  But Lynx
is there, and with your forebearance, Russell and I will someday
be implementing archive pages with Hoffman mailto: URLs on them
that get mailto: based posts threaded just like email replies.

As it is, we can just barely do it.  The demonstration will be
entirely dependent on Subject: matching in the reply.  While the
closed-loop-threading would work better if Lynx also implemented
the In-Reply-To: field out of the mailto: URL, what Lynx _already
has_ passes the make-or-break critical requirements for an
experiment.  An experiment that I believe will make a positive
contribution to learning how to make many kinds of information
media and processes accessible.

The is trying to get the WAI organized to work on the
accessibility problem.  One of the things that they will learn,
as they get organized, is that not only does Lynx, the product
"have it now;" lynx-dev, the process, is "doing it now."

Al Gilman
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]