>
> Like Murray (and probably many [most | all] others) I think that giving Web
> access to the visually impaired is simply the right thing to do.
> However, your proposal, "add five elements to the Proposed list"
> has the unfortunate effect of reviving the Proposed list, which
> as of yesterday appeared to be on its way to extinction.
Yes, but for me this is a separate issue. All I care about is a clear
statement that support for ICADD is a direction we are comfortable in
taking.
>
> Personally, this would be about the only case where I'd consider
> it proper to include in version 2.0 something that cannot be
> described as "current practice", but only if I can be convinced
> that there are good reasons why we can't wait until 2.1 to
> include it. Are there? Can we not wait until 2.1?
Absolutely, it can wait. It might be appropriate in the HTML 2.0 Spec,
even if there are no Proposed elements to nonetheless talk about the
directions we expectin tak ein 2.1 and on...
>
> As to the SIDEBAR issue, Terry, it seems that after all your
> arguments you only want to change its name. Are we getting into
> a religious argument? Isnt' the UN the proper forum for that? ;-)
>
I'm happy to have the name change although there is a separate debate
to be had here. OUTOFFLOW, which Terry proposes, is actually more
general (by far, I think) than SIDEBAR which implies a relation to
current text. It's possible, however, that SIDEBAR could be subsumed
into NOTE, that is as an OUT-of-flow NOTE, unlike WARNINGS, for instance,
which are of necessity IN-flow NOTEs.
OUTof FLOW could actually be an alias for <A> for some people.
Yuri