...

...

On Feb 19, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:

...

travis said:

...

Only your page does not conform to the html guidelines for accessibility

good point, travis. i'm more worried about the functionality now, but catch me on that later, ok?

but if you think it could, or should, do something more, i invite you to contribute some suggestions to that effect.

Which is exactly what this is. My experience is that if accessibility isn't designed from the start, often times it's overlooked entirely, or deemed too expensive/time consuming to engineer into the product later. I'm not saying labeling buttons couldn't be done later, but I am saying that if you ignore possible accessibility issues now, you'll wind up with a product that is (at best) a pain to use for those who need accessible applications, and (at worst) a completely useless piece of software, because their screen reader won't work with it, or they can't resize text, or something else that is dead simple to incorporate at the start, but nearly impossible to reverse engineer into the product when it's complete. Just pointing out possible pitfalls at the getgo so you aren't swamped with requests later to "fix" things later that you didn't consider in the beginning.

...

actually, it's more like a demonstration that z.m.l. format can be used as a "master" that can churn out other formats, which is an issue that p.g. and d.p. have been struggling with.

Which (I thought) was exactly what xml was supposed to be used for.

(not complaining about the use of zml, only pointing out that other options already exist.