E-mail List Archives
Re: Accessible P Tag Usage
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mar 16, 2019 6:52PM
- Next message: Jim Homme: "Re: Accessible P Tag Usage"
- Previous message: Peter Shikli: "Accessible P Tag Usage"
- Next message in Thread: Jim Homme: "Re: Accessible P Tag Usage"
- Previous message in Thread: Peter Shikli: "Accessible P Tag Usage"
- View all messages in this Thread
On 16/03/2019 22:05, Peter Shikli wrote:
[...]
> The strictest interpretation of these items is that it is required that
> relationships in content are programmatically available, including
> content "... such as a paragraph ...". Is this to be taken as saying
> text should, at a minimum, programmatically be a <p> tag, unless there
> is a more appropriate structural tag?
Taking it at the letter, yes, it could possibly be interpreted that way.
But it's just as valid, semantically, to have text just inside a <div>
or similar, so it gets very fuzzy. You could argue that if authors break
up sections of text using multiple <br> breaks instead of wrapping
things into separate containers (like <p> or similar), it's a failure.
But in general, I'd say this would be a "soft" failure (low severity,
low priority) at best (depending on the circumstances of course), and
generally I wouldn't bother looking for this sort of failure as most
sites I see have much more fundamental problems that cause greater problems.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
- Next message: Jim Homme: "Re: Accessible P Tag Usage"
- Previous message: Peter Shikli: "Accessible P Tag Usage"
- Next message in Thread: Jim Homme: "Re: Accessible P Tag Usage"
- Previous message in Thread: Peter Shikli: "Accessible P Tag Usage"
- View all messages in this Thread