<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Be Accessible, Don&#8217;t Meet Guidelines</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/2007/05/07/be-accessible-don%e2%80%99t-meet-guidelines/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/2007/05/07/be-accessible-don%e2%80%99t-meet-guidelines/</link>
	<description>The meanderings of a black widow...</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JackP</title>
		<link>http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/2007/05/07/be-accessible-don%e2%80%99t-meet-guidelines/comment-page-1/#comment-21035</link>
		<dc:creator>JackP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2007 22:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blackwidows.co.uk/blog/?p=123#comment-21035</guid>
		<description>Mel:
perfect. That's &lt;em&gt;precisely&lt;/em&gt; the sort of disagreement I'm looking for. Someone who takes what I've said on board, challenges parts of it and offers justification for doing so.

I'd just like to clarify: I do think marking up quotations enhances accessibility. I just don't think not doing so &lt;em&gt;always&lt;/em&gt; is a significant problem. I'd certainly recommend marking them up.

Similarly, I'd recommend marking up language changes. The main crux of the matter - which you seem to agree with - is that it's not a binary state. It's a continium, where you have complete inaccessibility ranging to major problems, ranging to minor problems, ranging to none, and that depends not only on the checkpoints breached, but the circumstances in which they are breached.

cheers
JackP</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mel:<br />
perfect. That&#8217;s <em>precisely</em> the sort of disagreement I&#8217;m looking for. Someone who takes what I&#8217;ve said on board, challenges parts of it and offers justification for doing so.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d just like to clarify: I do think marking up quotations enhances accessibility. I just don&#8217;t think not doing so <em>always</em> is a significant problem. I&#8217;d certainly recommend marking them up.</p>
<p>Similarly, I&#8217;d recommend marking up language changes. The main crux of the matter - which you seem to agree with - is that it&#8217;s not a binary state. It&#8217;s a continium, where you have complete inaccessibility ranging to major problems, ranging to minor problems, ranging to none, and that depends not only on the checkpoints breached, but the circumstances in which they are breached.</p>
<p>cheers<br />
JackP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
