This blog can't be viewed on LiveJournal. Instead see http://www.apparently.me.uk/15323.html.

  • Do both

    Considering how poorly the accessibility encouragements in the current HTML specifications have pushed web developers to create accessible markup, I really don't think accessibility statements can be mentioned too often. I get your point of HTML5 being a markup serialization and object model specification, but as most internet specifications need security assessments, I think content and markup specifications need accessibility requirements.

    If these requirements only point out the relevant parts of WCAG 2.0 or not isn't really important, but not mentioning accessibility in the HTML5 specification at all would be a step in the wrong direction for accessibility on the web, which in these Ajax days are pretty bad already. It's better in some areas (the markup has improved) and worse in others (there's more JavaScript and Flash now than ever).

    I indeed think referencing WCAG 2.0 from the HTML5 specification is a superb idea, because it lifts the burden of specifying the accessibility requirements from the HTML WG and promotes the work of WAI and the WCAG specification itself.

    PS: Enabling spell checking in the comment preview HTML encodes everything (including inserted BR tags) twice it seems.
    By ext_102221 at 09:00 am on 29th May 2008