Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Rely on CSS?

[ed nixon <ed dot nixon at lynnparkplace dot org>]

Paul Grosso wrote:
> At 13:39 2003 01 21 +0100, Stefan Priebsch (>e-novative>) wrote:
> <snip/>
> I'd say our advantages accrue from the fact that we are using DocBook
> XML for our source.  The CSS+HTML is the output, not the source.  As
> output, its raison d'etre is to present well.  (Yes, this includes
> being accessible, but use of the style attribute doesn't prevent this.)
This is all still very general or vague, it seems to me.

When we raise the notion of accessibility, for example, what do we mean? 
In my recollection, the style attribute is flagged as an accessibility 
no-no by many HTML validation utilities, the better ones, ie. those that 
generate notes, warnings, etc. about issues other than pure validation. 
(I haven't sent a DocBook sourced HTML page to one of the online 
accessibility services; I wonder how it would fare?)

For my part, I'd like to think that there was solid support from the 
DocBook community to aim for WAI Guidelines conformance at some 
meaningful level "out of the box"; most importantly for the HTML and 
XHTML transformations, but also wherever else it makes a difference for 
people with disabilities.

Regards.        ...edN